Judgment : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal, at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner’s father died in harness on 11.09.2001, leaving behind his widow, two daughters and two sons. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 06.05.2002, after getting no objection certificate from his mother, two sisters and brother and that application was rejected by the third respondent, by order dated 03.06.2002 and the same was challenged in O.A.No. 5150 of 2012 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal and later, it was transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No. 8402 of 2007 and the said Writ Petition was allowed by this Court on 01.08.2011 and the first respondent namely District Educational Officer, Kovilpatti was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by taking into account the observations made in that judgment, if there was no other impediment for appointment. Thereafter, the present impugned order was passed stating that the petitioner’s brother has studied B.E., and was earning and therefore, as per G.O.Ms.No. 998, Labour and Employment Department, dated 02.05.1981, the petitioner is not entitled to claim for appointment on compassionate ground and the same is challenged in this Writ Petition. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that even as per G.O.Ms.No. 998, dated 02.05.1981, unless the brother, who is earning and supporting the family, the other legal heir is not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground and the petitioner’s brother is not supporting the family and he is living separately and he is also having any permanent employment and therefore, rejection of the request of the petitioner is not justified. 4. The learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No. 998, dated 02.05.1981, only the order was passed admittedly, the petitioner’s brother studied upto B.E., and is employed and therefore, the family is not in indigent circumstance and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order, as the order was passed as per direction given in G.O.Ms.No. 998, referred to above. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. The third respondent without properly appreciating the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 998, dated 02.05.1981, referred to above, passed the impugned order. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Special Government Pleader. The third respondent without properly appreciating the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 998, dated 02.05.1981, referred to above, passed the impugned order. A reading of the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No. 998, dated 02.05.1981, would make it clear that if any member of the deceased family is employed in Government service and is supporting the family, the other members are not entitled to claim for appointment on compassionate ground. It is not the case of the third respondent that the brother of the petitioner is employed in Government service and he is supporting the family of the deceased employee. 6. Therefore, in the absence of any such finding, the application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected. Further, it is specifically stated in the affidavit, that the petitioner’s brother is not getting any permanent employment and he is also not earning and therefore, I am of the considered view that the order is liable to be set aside and it is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to give employment, if the petitioner’s family is in indigent circumstance. The exercise shall be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.