ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the decision as contained in Memo No. 1100 dated 24.03.2015 (Annex.-16) issued from the office of Additional Director General, CISF under the signature of Assistant Commandant, whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the sole ground that one of his brother is employed under Government Service and his another brother is also engaged in personal business. Further, the petitioner has also prayed for appointment on compassionate ground taking into account that his brothers are living separately and not maintaining his mother after death of his father in terms of the various orders and judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner's father namely, Late Ram Rantan Singh was appointed as a constable (G.D) on 01.05.1980 and he served the department with best satisfaction to all concerned authorities. Father of the petitioner, during his service period, while he was posted as ASI/Exe under CISF, ASG at Bhubhneshwar, was undergoing treatment at Appollo Hospital, Bhubhneshwar and on his request, respondent Authority issued an order vide letter No. 1690 dated 20.05.2013, whereby medical rest was granted for a period of 35 days with effect from 18.05.2013 to 21.06.2013 and was directed to report for duty on 22.06.2013. Further, father of the petitioner joined the service as directed by the respondent Authorities, but again on the advice of the Doctor of Appollo Hospital, Bhubhneshwar, medical leave was granted for a further period of 60 days with effect from 05.10.2013 to 03.12.2013 with a direction to report for duty on 04.12.2013 along with relevant medical reports. As per medical leave, father of the petitioner came to Ranchi to take proper rest and medical care. While petitioner's father was in Ranchi, his health further deteriorated and he died on 24.10.2013 in RIMS, Ranchi. After the death of his father, the mother of the petitioner submitted representation to the Senior Commandant, CISF/NSCVI, Airport, Kolkata, stating therein about her financial difficulties and old age and requested to take step for appointment of her youngest son on compassionate ground as petitioner was the only son who will be maintaining and looking after her family. 4. After the death of his father, the mother of the petitioner submitted representation to the Senior Commandant, CISF/NSCVI, Airport, Kolkata, stating therein about her financial difficulties and old age and requested to take step for appointment of her youngest son on compassionate ground as petitioner was the only son who will be maintaining and looking after her family. 4. Petitioner also filed a representation dated 28.11.2013 before the Senior Commandant, CISF/NSCVI, Airport, Kolkata, requesting therein his appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Constable (G.D) on the ground of financial difficulties. Thereafter, again on 23.12.2013, fresh representation was filed, requesting the respondent authority for appointment on compassionate ground. On 29.11.2013, the respondent authorities asked for certain documents, for taking needful action on the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, on 16.12.2013, the Chief Security Officer cum Deputy Commandant, CISF, Bhubhneshwar, Orissa, asked the petitioner to submit necessary documents as previously sought for so that further steps could be taken. Respondent Authorities vide letter No. 259 dated 31.01.2014, instructed the petitioner to furnish the required information as sought for immediately so that further necessary action can be taken in the matter. But, when no steps were taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed fresh representation on 08.03.2014 and requested therein to take proper steps in furtherance of his application. The brother of the petitioner also filed an application, stating therein that he is employed in SSB 37 B Battalion, Assam and after death of his father, partition has taken place amongst the brothers and he is not liable to maintain his mother who live with his youngest brother (petitioner). Certificates to the effect regarding the source of income, was submitted to the respondent authorities showing the annual income to be Rs. 40,000/-. The case of the petitioner was not considered and rejected vide Memo No. 1100 dated 24.03.2015 (Annex. 16) issued from the office of Additional Director General, CISF under the signature of Assistant Commandant. 5. Mrs. Ruchi Rampuria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason for rejection which is not tenable in the eyes of law. To buttress her argument, Mrs. 16) issued from the office of Additional Director General, CISF under the signature of Assistant Commandant. 5. Mrs. Ruchi Rampuria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioner without assigning any reason for rejection which is not tenable in the eyes of law. To buttress her argument, Mrs. Ruchi Rampuria, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment passed in the case of Union of India V. K.P. Tiwari as reported in (2003) 9 SCC at Page 129 which reads as under “the said order was reviewed by another application when the various circumstance of the death of the father of the respondent, brother being in employment and living separately not supporting the family of the respondent, were considered and the matter had been pending consideration for a long time and in view of the special circumstances directed that the respondent be provided with an employment within one month from the date of the receipt of the order”. In view of above, Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to decline to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. It is further submitted that it is clear from the observation made by Hon'ble High court of Madhya Pradesh that “Brother being in employment and living separately not supporting the family of the respondent” has to be taken into consideration while deciding the matter of appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel further relies to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Govind Prakash Verma V. LIC and Ors reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 wherein paragraph 6 read as under:- “6. 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. So far as the question of gainful employment of elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that it could be considered as gainful employment if the family owns a piece of land and one of the members of the family cultivates the field. So far as the question of gainful employment of elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that it could be considered as gainful employment if the family owns a piece of land and one of the members of the family cultivates the field. This statement is said to have been contradicted when it is said that the elder brother had stated that he works as a painter. This would not necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to the interference drawn that he was gainfully employed somewhere as a painter. He might be working in his field and might casually be getting work as painter also. Nothing has been indicated in the enquiry report as to where he was employed as a regular painter. The other aspects, on which the officer was required to make enquiries, have been conveniently omitted and not a whisper is found in the report submitted by the officer. In the above circumstances, in our view, the orders passed by the High Court are not sustainable. The respondents have wrongly refused compassionate appointment to the appellant. The inference of gainful employment of the elder brother could not be acted upon.” Similar issue had fallen for due consideration before Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of P. Suresh V. The District Educational Officer and after due consideration on the facts of the case, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to observe in paragraph 18 that : “18. As far as the first reason assigned by the second respondent is concerned, i.e., the employment of the 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. Therefore, the first reason assigned by the second respondent sound ex facie incorrect.” Similar question of appointment on compassionate issue had arisen in the case M.C.D. Vs Sh. Jai Singh reported in 142 (2007) DLT 581 wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe in Paragraph 6 as under : “6. Therefore, the first reason assigned by the second respondent sound ex facie incorrect.” Similar question of appointment on compassionate issue had arisen in the case M.C.D. Vs Sh. Jai Singh reported in 142 (2007) DLT 581 wherein the Hon'ble Court was pleased to observe in Paragraph 6 as under : “6. The issue that arises for consideration here is that whether the application of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds could be rejected merely because three of his brothers were working. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Presiding Officer, While arriving at a conclusion, took into consideration the evidence of the Management Witness, MW-1, who admitted that the three elder brothers of the respondent were ling separately and that the respondent was unemployed at the relevant time. He could also not point out any other income of the widow and the respondent. The Hon'ble High Court held that there was “no infirmity in the conclusions arrived at in the impugned award to the effect that the earnings of other relatives can have no bearing on the consideration of an application for compassionate appointment by dependent of the deceased workman unless and until it could be showed that other relatives were contributing financially so as to provide successor to the family of the deceased workman as also the applicant before the Court.” 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that an enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Commandant which also supported the case of the petitioner with a recommendation that the case will be considered for employment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in view of the principle and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon'ble High Courts, the impugned order dated 24.03.2015 is liable to be set aside and the respondents be directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Courts. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India has filed counter affidavit. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the impugned order is fully justified and the respondents have not committed any error in the order of rejection, taking into consideration the relevant rules in prevalent in CISF. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Sinha, Assistant Solicitor General of India has filed counter affidavit. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the impugned order is fully justified and the respondents have not committed any error in the order of rejection, taking into consideration the relevant rules in prevalent in CISF. Learned counsel for the respondents further argued and placed reliance on Hon'ble Apex Court Judgment in case of Auditor General of India and others Vs. G. Ananta Raieswara Rao [ (1994) 1 SCC 192 ] wherein it has been held that appointment on grounds of descent clearly violates Article 16 (2) of the Constitution and further reliance has been made to the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others [JT 1994(3) SC 525] [ : 1995(1) PLJR (SC)102]. Mr. Sinha draws attention of the court to Paragraph 8 and placed reliance on para 11 sub para (a) which is as page 42 (Annex. K) of the counter affidavit which reads as under: “In deserving cases even where there is already an earning member in the family, a dependent family member may be considered for compassionate appointment with prior approval of the Secretary of the Department/Ministry concerned who, before approving such appointment, will satisfy himself that grant of compassionate appointment is justified having regard to number of dependents, assets and liabilities left by the Government servant, income of the earning member as also his liabilities including the fact that the earning member is residing with the family of the Government servant and whether he should not be a source of support to other members of the family.” 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that the respondent authorities have illegally and arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and relevant rules, guidelines and directions have not been considered in proper prospective. Even an enquiry made by the respondent authorities themselves have not been taken into consideration. The cases relied by the learned counsel for the respondents does not come to his rescue rather it strengthen the case of the petitioner. 9. Even an enquiry made by the respondent authorities themselves have not been taken into consideration. The cases relied by the learned counsel for the respondents does not come to his rescue rather it strengthen the case of the petitioner. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncement, I hereby quash the letter contained in Memo No. 1100 dated 24.03.2015 (Annex.-16) issued from the office of Additional Director General, CISF under the signature of Assistant Commandant and direct the respondent No. 2, Additional Director General, C.I.S.F, for considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and if the case of the petitioner is found fit for appointment, the appointment letter be issued within a further period of one and half months thereafter. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the writ petition is allowed.