JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 19.06.2014, wherein and whereby, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on three reasons, namely, (a) that the petitioner is doing some business, (b) that the petitioner's brother is employed as Lecturer in a private college and (c) that the petitioner's father is receiving pension after his retirement. 2. The petitioner's mother was employed as Headmistress in middle school and died on 19.03.2005 while she was in service. The petitioner's father is a retired teacher. The petitioner's brother, namely one Mohan kumar is married and living separately with his family at Chennai. The petitioner made an application on 23.08.2005 within five months from the date of death of his mother, requesting for compassionate appointment. After nine years, the present impugned order is passed with the reasons as stated supra. 3. Counter affidavit is filed supporting the impugned order and reiterating the reasons stated therein. 4. The petitioner's brother, namely, P. Mohan kumar has filed supporting affidavit, dated 01.03.2015, stating that he is employed as Lecturer in a private college at Chennai and living separately with his family consisting of his wife and children. He has further stated that he is not in a position to financially support the family of the petitioner consisting of the petitioner's father and petitioner, as his income is not sufficient to meet out the expense of his family. He further stated that he has no objection for giving employment assistance to the petitioner. 5. Heard both sides. 6. Insofar as the first reason stated in the impugned order, namely, that the petitioner is self employed is concerned, it is specifically denied by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition by contending that he is not owning any medical store and on the other hand, he is only holding the Diploma as Sidda Medical Assistant. The said contention raised by the petitioner is not specifically denied in the counter and on the other hand, it is stated that even if the petitioner is not employed, the family pension received by the petitioner's father would show that the petitioner's family is not in an indigent circumstances. Therefore, the above referred first reason has not been substantiated by the respondents. Therefore, the above referred first reason has not been substantiated by the respondents. While coming to the second reason, namely, the petitioner's brother's employment is concerned, the affidavit filed by the said person as discussed supra would show that he is not supporting the family financially and on the other hand, he is living separately at Chennai with his family consisting of his wife and children. Therefore, the said reason also cannot be sustained, in view of the present facts and circumstances of the case. The third reason is that the petitioner's father is receiving pension and family pension. In fact, receipt of family pension by other family members of the deceased employee cannot be put against the person claiming compassionate appointment and such view has already been taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2005 (10) SCC 289 , (Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and others), wherein at paragraph 6, it has been observed as follows:- “6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the department authorities and the learned Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half) and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee. Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the family received the amounts admissible under the Rules.” 7. A learned Single Judge of this Court has considered similar issue raised in this writ petition in a decision reported in 2007(6) MLJ 1293 , (B. Jaya kumar vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., BSNL) wherein at paragraph Nos. 17, 18 and 19, it has been observed as follows:- “17. From a reading of the above impugned order, it can be seen that the reasoning given by the second respondent for rejecting the petitioner's claim of compassionate appointment is three-fold which is as under: a. Employment of the elder son of the deceased in Ind bank Housing and his salary of Rs.4,498/- b. Family pension of Rs.4,821/- per month received by the petitioner's family. c. Terminal benefits of Rs.4,16,125/- received by the petitioner's family. 18. As far as the first reason assigned by the second respondent is concerned, i.e., the employment of he elder son of the deceased, the second respondent himself has admitted that the petitioner's elder brother is drawing a salary of Rs.4,498/- married and living separately with his wife and children. When such is the case, one cannot expect him to contribute to the petitioner's family and that too when his livelihood itself is at stake since the company where he was employed was not doing well and this is evident from the termination order of the petitioner's brother which specifically states that it has not been running well since 1998. Therefore, the first reason assigned by the second respondent sound ex facie incorrect. 19. Coming to the second reason cited in the impugned order that the petitioner's family is receiving family pension of Rs.4,821/- admittedly, the petitioner's father did not give proper nomination during his lifetime and hence, his mother has been getting Rs.500/- from the pensionary benefits in addition to 50% of the General Provident Fund which she has received. Secondly, engineering education undergone by the petitioner's younger brother, without any sort of scholarship or aid from any source whatsoever, had to be taken care of and it could not have been discontinued abruptly just because his father had died. In addition to these, the petitioner's family has also to look after its basic requirements, viz., food, clothing and shelter, particularly in the present days' cost of living. While considering these aspects, I am of the considered view that the second reasoning stated in the impugned order cannot be a just and fair ground to reject the petitioner's case.” 8. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances and following the above decision referred supra, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and pass appropriate orders, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.