K. S. GUPTA ( 1 ) PETITION filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide employment on compassionate ground was disposed of by an order dated October 3. 1996 with the following directions: "having gone through the affidavits exchanged, we are of the view that rejection by the respondents of the petitioners request for compassionate employment on the ground that the family s total income exceeded the stipulated income of Rs. 1,000. 00 p. m. is not proper, in view of the specific averments made by/the petitioner in his application, copy of which has been produced by the respondents as annexure R-l. that his brother Jamna Prashad along with his family was residing separately during the life time of his father. The petitioner has specifically pointed out that Jamna Prashad was residing separately through he was earning Rs. l,100. 00 p. m. while employed in the corporation. In these circumstances, neither Jamna Prashad could have been treated as a member of the family, nor his income could have been included in the family s income. Consequently the order of rejection being bad, the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. Ordered accordingly. Respondents are. directed to decide the petitioner s case afresh in accordance with the policy within a period of two months from today and to place that decision on record before the next date. In case the petitioner is found eligible, his name will be brought on the relevant panel. "list for directions on December 10, 1996 " ( 2 ) IN view of the said order an additional affidavit dated January 5, 1997 containing the decision taken has now been filed by the respondents. Para No. 5 thereof, which is relevant, reads thus: "that. pursuant to the order passed by this Hon ble Court, the representation of the petitioner was reconsidered by the" Screening Committee in its meeting held on 25. 10. 1996. The Committee rejected the petitioner s case on the following grounds: i) The case was not covered under Clause 7 (a) of the Police since the family income exceeded the stipulated amount of Rs. 1100. 00 The elder brother of the petitioner is earning Rs, 1800/-per month from a regular job which fact was given by the petitioner himself. 1996. The Committee rejected the petitioner s case on the following grounds: i) The case was not covered under Clause 7 (a) of the Police since the family income exceeded the stipulated amount of Rs. 1100. 00 The elder brother of the petitioner is earning Rs, 1800/-per month from a regular job which fact was given by the petitioner himself. ii) The ration card and affidavit were also perused which Were Submitted alongwith the application in which Shri Jamuna Prasad has been shown as a family member of the deceased employee. The case has been cobsidered as a single Unit family. Subsequent statements regarding separation of the elder brother is just an after though to grab the service on fake/fictitious grounds/copy of the minutes of the Screening Committee meeting held on 25. 10. 1996 is annexed as ANNEXURE-R3" ( 3 ) PETITIONER filed reply to the additional affidavit again reiterating that the petitioner and his brother. Jamuna Prashad are married and they have been living separately for the last 12 years. Name of the petitioner is included in the ration card No. 255796 dated January 1, 1988, in the name of his father. After the death of his parents their names were deleted from the ration card (copy annexure R2 ). Similarly Jamuna Prashad has a separate ration card No. 251631 dated January 1, 1988 (copy annexure R3 ). Copies of these ration cards were also attached with the application dated September 7,1994, seeking appointment on compassionate ground. ( 4 ) WE heard the learned counsel for both the parties. ( 5 ) IN the ration card No. 255796 (annexure R2) name of the petitioner is noted as head of the family with residential address No. 3. Ataur Rehman Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi. Another ration card No. 251631 is in the name of Jamuna Prashad also with the same residential address i. e. No. 3, Ataur Rehman Lane . The reasoning recorded now by the Screening Committee that presumably both the petitioner and his said brother have been living jointly in aforesaid house No. 3, Ataur Rehman Lane, but were having separate ration card for convenience sake cannot be said to be perverse. The reasoning recorded now by the Screening Committee that presumably both the petitioner and his said brother have been living jointly in aforesaid house No. 3, Ataur Rehman Lane, but were having separate ration card for convenience sake cannot be said to be perverse. As such the view taken by the Screening Committee that the subsequent statement made by the petitioner regarding separation of the elder brother Jamuna Prashad is an after-thought and an attempt to grab the service on compassionate ground, is possible which can legitimately be taken in this case. As such we find no ground to interfere with the impugned decision taken by the respondents. File be consigned.