ORDER 1. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on compassionate ground by an order dated 24.1.1982 of the third respondent, since his father, who was working as Junior Assistant in the Rural Development Department was medically invalidated from service on 17.9.1981. While so, after 19 years of his service, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 6.6.2001 appointing him as Record Clerk with effect from 28.1.1982. The reason for demoting him from Junior Assistant to Record Clerk is that while the post of Junior Assistant comes under the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the post of Record Clerk comes outside the purview of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the compassionate appointment in the case of medical invalidation could be given only to post that comes outside the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The said order was passed after issuing a show cause notice dated 5.3.2001. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A. No. 3822 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 6.6.2001. 2. While ordering notice of motion in the Original Application on 20.6.2001, the Tribunal granted interim stay. Pursuant to the order of interim stay, the petitioner continued in service as Junior Assistant. 3. The respondents filed reply affidavit refuting the allegations made by the petitioner. The respondents have sought to sustain the impugned order based on the reasons given in the reply affidavit.. 4. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P. No. 3472 of 2007. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The third respondent sent a proposal dated 20.11.1987 to the second respondent for regularisation of the services of the petitioner. In turn, the second respondent sent a proposal dated 8.2.1988 to the first respondent Government seeking regularisation of the services of the petitioner. When the matter was pending with the Government, the third respondent passed an order dated 10.9.1990 terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that the father of the petitioner was invalidated from service on medical grounds at the age of 54 years and that as per the Government Orders in respect of compassionate appointment, the dependents of the Government servant who is invalidated before the age of 50 years alone are entitled for compassionate appointment. 7. 7. The petitioner filed Original Application in O.A. No. 2779 of 1990 before the Tribunal questioning the aforesaid order dated 10.9.1990 of the third respondent. While admitting the said Original Application on 14.9.1990, the Tribunal granted interim order and pursuant to the same, the petitioner continued in service. Ultimately on 26.3.1991, the Tribunal allowed the said Original Application and set aside the order dated 10.9.1990 of the third respondent. While allowing the said Original Application, the Tribunal held that earlier there was no restriction as to age in relation to compassionate appointment in respect of medical invalidation and later, the Government issued a letter dated 23.11.1982 imposing restriction that in the case of invalidation on or after attaining the age of 50 years, compassionate appointment could not be made. However, the Government issued another letter dated 27.8.1983 clarifying that the restrictions cannot be applied to past cases, if the individuals are already working. 8. In these circumstances, the third respondent again sent a proposal dated 21.9.1992 to the second respondent for regularisation of the services of the petitioner. Based on the proposal of the third respondent, the second respondent sent a proposal dated 15.12.1994 to the first respondent. When the proposal was pending with the first respondent, the third respondent passed the impugned order dated 6.6.2001 as stated above. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relied on a Government Order in G.O. Ms. No. 1119, Labour and Employment Department, dated 20.5.1981 and more particularly, para 3 of the said Government Order, which reads as follows: “In the letter third and fifth read above, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, has expressed its view that the object of the Government is to provide immediate means of livelihood when the bread-winner dies in harness and that it would be more than sufficient if a close relative of the deceased is provided with employment in a post not higher than that of a Junior Assistant. The Commissioner has also held that it would, however, be open to the candidate, who is qualified for a higher post, to apply to it through normal course. The Commission is also of the view that the orders issued in the G.O. Ms. No. 560, Labour and Employment, dated 3.8.1977 may result in the appointment of an individual possessing a degree outside the normal course, as Deputy Collector or to similar posts. The Commission is also of the view that the orders issued in the G.O. Ms. No. 560, Labour and Employment, dated 3.8.1977 may result in the appointment of an individual possessing a degree outside the normal course, as Deputy Collector or to similar posts. If a graduate is appointed as Deputy Collector or Deputy Superintendent of Police or to similar posts and if another graduate is appointed only as Junior Assistant taking into account the indigent circumstances of the family of the deceased, it would amount to discrimination. The Commission has, therefore, requested the Government to examine the matter in detail and issue suitable orders on the suggestion made by it.” The aforesaid Government Order provides compassionate appointment to a post not higher than that of Junior Assistant, which comes under the purview of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, to the dependents of Government employees, who die in harness. In my considered view, the same principle should be extended to the dependents of the medically invalidated Government employees also, since the purpose of providing compassionate appointment in both the cases is the same. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that there were no illegalities in the appointment of the petitioner as Junior Assistant. Now the third respondent, who passed the earlier order dated 10.9.1990 on different grounds that was quashed by the Tribunal, could not come with a new ground to demote the petitioner. The petitioner rendered more than 19 years of service at the time of filing of the Original Application in O.A. No. 3822 of 2001 (the present writ petition). Now he has rendered 30 years of service. 10. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned order is arbitrary and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Petition allowed.