Thursday, 14, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Saheel Aqthar vs The Chief Engineer(Personnel)
2021 Latest Caselaw 8983 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 8983 Mad
Judgement Date : 1 April, 2021

Madras High Court
Saheel Aqthar vs The Chief Engineer(Personnel) on 1 April, 2021
                                                       1

                           BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                             DATED: 01.04.2021

                                                    CORAM:

                          THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
                                                AND
                               THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL

                                         W.A(MD)NO.769 OF 2021
                                                  and
                                        C.M.P(MD)No.3457 of 2021


                      Saheel Aqthar                         :Appellant/Petitioner


                                             .vs.


                      1.The Chief Engineer(Personnel),
                        Tamil Nadu Generation and
                        Distribution Corporation Limited,
                        TANGEDCO,
                        144, Anna Salai,
                        Chennai-2.

                      2.The Superintending Engineer,
                        Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution
                        Corporation Limited,
                        TANGEDCO,
                        Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle,
                        Madurai.                          : Respondents/Respondents

                      PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent
                      praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
                      W.P(MD)No.22676 of 2017, dated 20.1.2021.


                                 For Appellant              :Mr.G.Kannan
                                                             for M/s.S.Veera Associates



http://www.judis.nic.in
                                                         2

                                                JUDGMENT

*************

[Judgment of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J.]

This Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of

the learned Single Judge declining to interfere with the impugned

order refusing to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to

the Petitioner/appellant.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused

the materials placed before this Court.

3.Admittedly, the father of the appellant died on 4.1.2010, by

which time, the appellant was 11 years old and a minor. However,

the mother of the appellant had made an application for

compassionate appointment on behalf of the minor on 3.12.2012

which was rejected on 3.1.2013. Thereafter, on 5.7.2017, when the

appellant attains majority, he made an application once again for

appointment on compassionate grounds on 16.09.2017.This

application was rejected, as the application ought to have been

made within three years from the date of death of the Government

servant. In this case, thought he had applied for, through his

mother within a period of three years, he was not qualified for

employment. Being compassionate appointment, it is always open

http://www.judis.nic.in

to the mother of the appellant who was on that date qualified to

take up the employment . However, that had not been done so in

this case.

4.The learned Single Judge had referred to the judgment in

W.A.No.3899 of 2019 in the case of Poongodi .vs. The

Chairman, Electricity Board, wherein, it is stated that the

minimum age is 18 years and a minor cannot be appointed into the

Government Service. The complaint of the appellant is that none of

the orders referred to in the case of minors, when the cause of

action arises during their minority. We failed to understand that

compassionate appointment as contemplated, is only a succor to

the family which is in penury, which had lost its sole bread winner.

It has been well settled that appointment on compassionate

grounds is an offer to a dependant of the deceased employee, as an

exception of the usual norms. The compassionate appointment

cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it has no vested right. It

is also open to the employer to modify the scheme depending on

the policies that they follow.

5.At this juncture, it is pertinent to advert to the decision of

the Honourable Apex Court in the case of N.C.Santhosh .vs. State

of Karnataka and others reported in (2020) 7 Supreme

http://www.judis.nic.in

Court Cases 617, in which. it has been held as follows:

''19.Applying the law governing compassionate appointment culled out from the above cited judgments, our opinion on the point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of consideration of the application, should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any vested right accruing on the demand consideration of his/her application. He is, however, dis-entitled to seek consideration in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of death of the government employee.''

6.It is not in dispute that in the State of Tamil Nadu also

G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment(Q1) Department, dated

23.1.2020 was issued giving comprehensive guidelines on

compassionate appointment. The said Government Order

prescribes that an application for compassionate appointment

may be submitted within three years from the date of death of the

Government Servant and on the date of application, the applicant

should complete the minimum age of 18 years and the maximum

age limit for the spouse/father/mother is 50 years on the date of

death of the Government Servant. The maximum age limit for the

son or daughter of the deceased Government Servant and http://www.judis.nic.in

unmarried brother/unmarried sister of the unmarried deceased

Government Servant is 40 years at the time of applying.

Advertently, in this case, on the date of death of the employee, the

appellant was a minor and though he had made an application

through his mother, he did not have the required qualification

namely, completion of 18 years. Therefore, it was rightly rejected

and for the second time, which is time barred, cannot be

entertained and it is rightly rejected by the authorities and

confirmed by the learned Single Judge. This Court finds no infirmity

in the order of the learned Single Judge and accordingly, the Writ

Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

[P.S.N.,J.] & [S.K.,J.] 01.04.2021

Index:Yes/No

Internet:Yes/No

vsn

Note :

In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be http://www.judis.nic.in

the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

To

1.The Chief Engineer(Personnel), Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, TANGEDCO, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

2.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, TANGEDCO, Madurai Electricity Distribution Circle, Madurai.

http://www.judis.nic.in

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA J.

AND S.KANNAMMAL, J.

vsn

JUDGMENT MADE IN W.A(MD)NO.769 OF 2021 and C.M.P(MD)No.3457 of 2021

01.04.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter