Judgment 1. Mr.J.Gunaseelan Muthiah, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents and by consent of both the parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission, as the issue involved in this case is directly covered in favour of the petitioner in a decision made in W.P.(MD)No.13482 of 2014 dated 06.03.2014. 2. The petitioner is seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in Mu.Mu.No.5560/A1/2014 dated 23.04.2014 and consequently, direct the respondents to provide employment to the petitioner as Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the second respondent dated 23.04.2014, and through the impugned order, the request of the petitioner seeking for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on the reason that the petitioner's father is a retired employee and is receiving pension and that the petitioner's brother is practicing as an Advocate. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner's brother is living separately after getting married and therefore, he is not looking after the family consisting of the petitioner and his father. The petitioner is seeking for compassionate appointment pursuant to the death of her mother, who was working as a Drawing teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School and died on 01.05.2006, due to heart attack. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that receiving the pension by one of the family members is not a bar for considering the request for compassionate appointment and this Court considered the very same issue in W.P(MD)No.13482 of 2014 dated 06.03.2014, and rejected the objections raised by the Department. 6. Insofar as the other reason that the petitioner's brother is practicing as Advocate is concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said person is living separately in a different place and he is not looking after the family and he also filed an affidavit stating that he has no objection for giving the employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner's father is receiving pension and that the petitioner's brother is a practicing Advocate, the impugned order has rightly been passed. 8. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner's father is receiving pension and that the petitioner's brother is a practicing Advocate, the impugned order has rightly been passed. 8. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 9. A perusal of the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner seeking for compassionate appointment would show that except the two reasons already discussed supra, no other reason is stated. Therefore, this Court has to consider as to whether those reasons are valid for rejecting the request of the petitioner. 10. Insofar as the reason that the petitioner's father is receiving pension is concerned, such issue was already considered by this Court in W.P(MD)No.13482 of 2014. After following the Division Bench decision of this Court in the matter of J.Felix Balanayagam -vs- State of Tamil Nadu through its Secretary Rural Development Department, Chennai 600 009 and others reported in (2010) 1 MLJ 1150 , this Court has rejected the said contention. The relevant paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said decision, are extracted below: "5. ..... The reasons assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner's father was receiving pension and family pension after his retirement as School Teacher and therefore, the petitioner's family was not under the indigent circumstances. Whether receipt of family pension is a bar for considering the request for compassionate appointment has been considered by this Court on very many occasions. In one such decision, the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in the matter of J.Felix Balanayagam -vs- State of Tamil Nadu through its Secretary Rural Development Department, Chennai 600 009 and others reported in (2010) 1 MLJ 1150 has held at paragraphs 4 to 8 as follows: “4. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the receipt of monthly pension could be a disqualification for denial of the appointment on compassionate ground. Before that, we may also refer to the submissions of the learned Government Advocate on other grounds. The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the receipt of monthly pension could be a disqualification for denial of the appointment on compassionate ground. Before that, we may also refer to the submissions of the learned Government Advocate on other grounds. According to the learned Government Advocate, though the order impugned in the writ petition refers to the receipt of monthly pension as the ground for cancellation of appointment, going by the counter affidavit, it could be seen that the appellant's request for appointment on compassionate ground was also rejected as his father was working in an aided school and that order has become final, and consequently he applied for appointment on compassionate ground after four years of such rejection and, therefore, he cannot claim that his appointment should not have been cancelled. As far as the said submission is concerned, we may state that an order which has been passed by the respondents should stand on its own reasons and any amount of explanation to sustain such an order by way of filing counter affidavit and by giving fresh reasons cannot validate that order. In this context, we may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji, AIR1952 SC 16, where it has been held as follows:- "9......We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." This judgment was quoted with approval by the Apex Court in the subsequent judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, AIR 1978 SC 851 ,: (1978) 1 SCC 405 where it has been held as follows:- "8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out....Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 5. In view of the above settled law, we cannot consider the other reasons given by the respondents in the counter affidavit and we are left with the only reason given in the impugned order, namely, as to whether the receipt of pension could be a disqualification for consideration of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. In the order impugned in the writ petition, the respondents have relied upon the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.155, Labour and Employment Department dated 16.7.93 on the ground that (i) when there is already an earning member in the family, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given and that (ii) when the family receives pension, that can be a disqualification as that family is not living in indigent circumstances. As far as the first ground is concerned, the father of the appellant, though was working in an aided school as a Lab Assistant, retired on 30.4.97 and that the application for appointment on compassionate ground was made only subsequently i.e., on 12.5.97. That application was considered and he was appointed on 25.9.98. In view of the above factual position, the reliance placed on G.O.Ms.No.155 dated 16.7.93 that on the date when the appointment was made or even when the application was made, there was an earning member in the family is factually incorrect. Hence the said reason cannot be accepted. 7. As far as the ground relating to the receipt of pension is concerned, we may refer to paragraph-2 of the very same Government Order, which reads as follows:- "2. The Government have re-examined the above mentioned conditions. The expression "indigent circumstances " has not been precisely defined. It has been left mostly to the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authorities. Therefore, the Service Associations have represented that this condition be deleted. The Government have re-examined the above mentioned conditions. The expression "indigent circumstances " has not been precisely defined. It has been left mostly to the subjective satisfaction of the appointing authorities. Therefore, the Service Associations have represented that this condition be deleted. The family of a deceased Government Servant is entitled to Provident Fund accumulations, family benefit fund, Death-cum-retirement Gratuity, Encashment of leave at credit at the time of death, etc. The Government consider that these amounts or the interest earnings that will accrue on depositing these amounts need not be taken into consideration. It is therefore necessary to ascertain whether the family is having immovable property like houses, lands, etc., the income from which is substantial to sustain the family without any external help. The Government therefore direct that the criteria for indigent circumstances is that the family should not own any house or landed properties or if owned, the income from which is insufficient to sustain the family. Certificate from the Tahshildar to this effect will have to be produced." While considering the expression "indigent circumstances", the Government have specifically directed that certain incomes received by the family in respect of a deceased Government servant, to which they are otherwise entitled to, can be excluded. The pension is also one of the incomes that has been specifically included in that Government Order. If that be so, the reason that the family is receiving monthly pension and therefore the appointment made on compassionate ground should be set aside cannot be accepted. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, both the grounds referred to in the order questioned in the writ petition are unsustainable and they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. The appellant, though was served with the impugned order, he obtained interim orders of stay and therefore he continued in the service till the writ petition came to be dismissed on 17.7.2007. We are informed that he has been relieved from the post on 15.9.2007. In view of the order in the writ appeal, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages for the period from 15.9.2007 till the date of this order. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.” 11. We are informed that he has been relieved from the post on 15.9.2007. In view of the order in the writ appeal, the appellant is entitled to be reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages for the period from 15.9.2007 till the date of this order. Consequently, M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2008 is closed. No costs.” 11. Thus, a perusal of the above said decision would show that receipt of pension cannot be cited as the reason for rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. 12. Therefore, by following the above said decision, I reject the contention of the second respondent with regard to the pension received by the father. 13. Insofar as the other reason, namely, the brother of the petitioner is a practicing Advocate is concerned, first of all, it is to be noted that there is no presumption that the brother who is said to be practicing as an Advocate is constantly and periodically receiving any money out of his profession. There are ever so many Advocates finding it difficult to maintain the family with a meagre sum of fees received from their clients or remuneration given by their respective Seniors. It is not an universal presumption that all the lawyers are flourishing and minting money. Needless to say that this profession has no certainty of standard income. Therefore, it cannot be said that the brother is earning member of the family with certainty. Even assuming so, the very fact that the brother is living separately after marriage and filing an affidavit stating that he is living separately and is not having any objection for giving employment to the petitioner, would show that the said brother is not taking care of the petitioner's family. Therefore, even assuming that he is earning any money, the same is not helping the petitioner's family for its sustenance. It is further stated that the petitioner is a widow. 14. Considering all these aspects, I am of the view that the reasons assigned by the second respondent in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the second respondent pass suitable orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.