Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the original application on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order of termination passed by the respondent/District Educational Officer, Thiruvallur in Proc.R.C.No.131/A1/92 dated 16.03.2000. Though the petitioners appointment was made on compassionate grounds, the respondent came to know that the petitioners mother was working at the time of submission of his application, seeking compassionate appointment. As he concealed and deliberately withheld such vital information with wrong motive to get compassionate appointment by suppressing the fact that the petitioners mother was not working anywhere, namely, the petitioners mother was working as Telugu Pandit in Government Girls Higher Secondary School at Thiruthani, he was issued with the impugned order ignoring the fact that his mother also died on 10.01.2000. When the impugned order was challenged, the Tribunal has granted interim stay at the time of entertaining the Original Application. By virtue of interim stay, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service. When the petitioners mother Tmt.Nagarathinnammal, also died on 10.01.2000, leaving behind the petitioner, it was pleaded that the petitioner is entitled to seek compassionate appointment but his turn will come late. Therefore, the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to sustain the appointment granted to the petitioner on compassionate ground is that though the respondent came to know that the petitioners mother was employed as Telugu Pandit in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School at Thiruthani, at the time of submitting the application seeking for employment on compassionate ground, the respondent has passed the impugned order, terminating the service of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner by suppressing the fact that the petitioners mother Tmt.Nagarathinnammal not employed. But, unfortunately, the petitioners mother Tmt.Nagarathinnammal also died on 10.01.2000. Therefore, the petitioner is left without anybody to take care of him and his family. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner further requested to consider the subsequent development taken place, namely, the death of the petitioners mother. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till now. Subsequently, the petitioner got married and is having a child. Since the petitioners mother also passed away, he is entitled to get employment on compassionate ground. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. In the light of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner was allowed to continue in service till now. Subsequently, the petitioner got married and is having a child. Since the petitioners mother also passed away, he is entitled to get employment on compassionate ground. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order. Thirdly, he further submits that in the light of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, since he was allowed to continue for more than 10 years, he was over aged and was carrying the biggest family responsibility consisting of wife and child and in such circumstances, if the impugned order terminating the service of the petitioner is not set aside, his entire family would be uprooted resulting irreparable hardship to his family members. 2. This Court has no sympathy for the petitioner to continue in service, as he has concealed the factum of his mother employed as Telugu Pandit in the Government Girls Higher Secondary School in Tiruthani, at the time of application, seeking for employment on compassionate ground. But taking into account the subsequent development that the petitioners mother died on 10.01.2000 and the petitioner also, by virtue of interim order, is continuing in service for more than 10 years upholding the impugned order of termination would definitely result in uprooting in the petitioner’s family. That aprat, he is also entitled to get the benefit of compassionate ground on the ground that the petitioners mother was also died. 3. In this context, it is useful to refer a judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 9 Supreme Court Cases 129 (UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS V. K.P.TIWARI), wherein it is held that in as much as the respondent having been appointed and continuing in service for more than five years, it would not be appropriate to disturb that state of affairs by making any other order resulting in uprooting the respondent from his livelihood. Following the above said decision of the Supreme Court, this Court in W.P.No.19687 of 2006 by order dated 16.11.2006 has held that if any one appointed on compassionate ground is allowed to work for five years, after completion of five years, the said appointment cannot be cancelled, as it would otherwise affect the right of the person appointed and also his family and on that basis, by setting aside the impugned dismissal order, issued further direction to regularise the service of compassionate appointment. As this order was passed following a judgment of Supreme Court, I have also followed the above said order in another similar writ petition No.42681 of 2006 dated 22.06.2010. 4. In the light of above discussion and on the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned supra, the impugned order, which is under challenge, is unsustainable. The petitioner has admittedly worked for more than 10 years and therefore, in view of the dictum of the Supreme Court, which is squarely applicable to the facts of this case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the same is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.