(Judgment of the Court was made by D.MURUGESAN, J.) The mother of the appellant by name Tmt.P.N.Grace was working as Rural Women Working Welfare Officer in Srivaikuntam Panchayat Union, Tuticorin District. She died on 3.8.93. As the scheme provided for compassionate appointment, the appellant applied for such appointment on 25.8.93. Though the appellant disclosed in his application that his father was employed in an aided school as Lab Assistant, he could not produce the certificate to the effect that none of the family members was in employment either in Government or in private. Hence the application was rejected on 15.12.93.
2. Thereafter, the appellant again made another application on 12.5.97, as his father also retired by the time on 30.4.97. That application was considered and he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on compassionate ground in Ottapidaram Panchayat Union on 25.9.98. The District Collector, Tuticorin District sent a proposal in his letter dated 29.8.2001 to the Government for regularisation of his appointment. That proposal did not find favour with the first respondent, namely, the Secretary of Rural Development Department on the ground that the family members were not in "indigent circumstances", as they were receiving family pension to the tune of Rs.4,670/-. This order came to be questioned in the writ petition. The appellant also obtained interim order and he continued in the post till the writ petition came to be dismissed on 17.7.2007 and that he has also been relieved on 15.9.2007. Being aggrieved by that order, the present writ appeal is filed.
3. We have heard Mr.M.Krishnappan, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr.So.Paramasivam, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.
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. 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, AIR 1952 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, 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. 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 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.
ss To
1. The Secretary to Government Rural Development Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Director Rural Development Department Panagal Building Saidapet Chennai 600 015
3. The District Collector Tuticorin District Tuticorin