Madras High Court
R.Thangeswran vs The Commissioner on 8 April, 2025
Author: S.Srimathy
Bench: J. Nisha Banu, S.Srimathy
W.A.(MD)No.773 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 28.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J. NISHA BANU
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.A(MD)No.773 of 2025
R.Thangeswran ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner,
Commissioner of Revenue Administrative
and Disaster Management,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats),
Department of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj,
Virudhunagar.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Watrap Panchayat Union,
Watrap. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letter Patent against the order
of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.27305 of 2022, dated 06.06.2024.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
W.A.(MD)No.773 of 2025
For Appellants :Mr.I.Suthakaran
For Respondents :Mr.S.S.Madhavan
Additional Government Pleader
***
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.SRIMATHY, J.)
The present writ appeal is filed against the order passed in W.P.
(MD)No.27305 of 2022, dated 06.06.2024.
2.The writ petition was filed for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified
Mandamus, to quash the order, dated 22.06.2022, passed by the 3rd respondent and
consequently, to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner a compassionate
appointment on the death of his father due to COVID-19, while he was in the
service of “Thooimai Kavalar” under the 4th respondent.
3. The brief facts as stated in the affidavit is that the writ petitioner's
father was working as a "Thooimai Kavalar" with the 4th respondent and on
27.07.2020, he was admitted in the Government Rajaji Hospital at Madurai as he
tested positive for Covid-19, where he succumbed on 30.07.2020 and his body
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
was cremated at Thathaneri Electrical Funeral Ground at Madurai. The writ
petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community (Hindu-Parayar) and the
petitioner's family consists of 5 members including aged grandmother. The writ
petitioner's father's income was the main source of income to the writ petitioner
and his family. The writ petitioner has completed B.A., (Economics) in Madurai
Kamaraj University. Since the writ petitioner's father died due to the COVID-19
while he was in service as "Thooimai Kavalar", the writ petitioner's mother made
request to the government for monetary assistance of Rs.50 Lakhs/- and the writ
petitioner requested for compassionate appointment on the ground that the relief
measures were announced by the government in the letter, dated 28.07.2020, by
the 1st respondent. After repeated request to the respondents, the writ petitioner's
mother was granted monetary assistance of Rs.25,00,000/- by the government,
vide G.O.No.289, of 2nd respondent department, dated 14.12.2021 and the writ
petitioner's application for government job was rejected by the 1st respondent in
Na.Ka.No.P3/27935/2022, dated 22.06.2022, stating no such Rules / Government
Order / Government Letter was announced for appointment on compassionate
ground. The contention of the petitioner is that the said impugned order is against
the announcement made by the government, vide letter, in
Ne.Mu.Ka.No.Varu.Thani 5(2)/18352/2020, dated 28.07.2020. Hence, the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
writ petition is filed.
4. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition,
wherein it is stated that the writ petitioner's father namely, G.Rajendran was not
an employee of the 4th respondent but had worked as "Thooimai Kavalar" under
Solid Waste Management Scheme. The Solid Waste Management Scheme was
floated by the State Government, vide G.O.Ms.No.54, dated 10.04.2018, wherein
solid waste management works were outsourced at every level through
Independent Agency, viz., Village Poverty Reduction Committee / Panchayat
Level Federation (PLF). The Maharajapuram Village Panchayat under 4th
respondent Union executed solid waste management works through outsourced
agency, viz., Maharajapuram Village Poverty Reduction Committee. The writ
petitioner's father was selected and appointed as "Thooimai Kavalar" under Solid
Waste Management Scheme by Maharajapuram Village Poverty Reduction
Committee through Resolution No.137, dated 10.04.2018. Under the Scheme,
every “Thooimai Kavalar” was paid a sum of Rs.3,600/- per month on
consolidated basis with effect from 05.12.2020 and the writ petitioner's father was
receiving Rs.3,600/- per month on consolidated basis. There is no scheme or rules
for providing compassionate appointment to "Thooimai Kavalar” appointed under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
Solid Waste Management Scheme. Further, the writ petitioner's father is not a
regular employee of the 4th respondent. During the COVID-19 pandemic situation,
the State Government was pleased to announce monetary assistance /
compensation for frontline workers like Doctors, Nurses, Police, Help Workers,
scavengers etc., who died on account of COVID-19 disease, while performing
their duties. Hence, the case of the writ petitioner's father was sympathetically
considered and compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- was awarded to the writ
petitioner's family, vide G.O.Ms.No.289, dated 14.12.2021. The grant of
compensation to the family of frontline workers cannot be taken advantage for
insisting appointment under compassionate grounds, since there is no such
scheme for providing compassionate appointment to the legal heirs of "Thooimai
Kavalar” appointed under Solid Waste Management Scheme. At no stretch of
imagination, the writ petitioner's father cannot be termed as a regular employee of
State Government in order to adopt the scheme of compassionate appointment.
The scheme of compassionate appointment was introduced to mitigate the
circumstances arising on account of sudden demise of the regular government
employee. Further the compassionate appointment is neither a regular
appointment nor an appointment under the constitutional scheme. It is a
concession granted to the government employees on certain exceptional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
circumstances. Thus, the compassionate appointment can never be claimed as a
matter of right and only if a person is entitled under the terms and conditions, then
alone the scheme can be extended but not otherwise. Equal opportunity in public
employment is a constitutional mandate. All appointments are to be made in
accordance with the rules and by providing equal opportunity to participate is the
process of selection. Hence, the 4th respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
5. After hearing the rival contentions, the Writ Court has held that the
compensation was granted since the petitioner’s family is not entitled to get the
benefits of regular government employee. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek
another benefit for which he is not eligible and dismissed the writ petition.
Aggrieved over the same, the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ appeal.
6. The primary contention of the appellant/ writ petitioner is that the
Hon’ble Chief Minister had announced compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- along
with a post to the eligible member of the family of the deceased government
servant who served as front worker during Covid-19. The said contention of the
petitioner cannot be accepted since the same is only announcement but there is no
such government order to this effect.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
7. Further it is seen that the deceased was not a regular government
employee but only an employee under a scheme with consolidated salary. The
G.O. grants compassionate appointment specifically states no compassionate
appointment can be granted for deceased family who served as NMR, daily
wages, consolidated pay, temporary employees. The compassionate appointment
is meant for the family of regular employee alone.
8. Further it is seen that the government had already paid compensation
of Rs.25,00,000/- to the deceased employee’s family. Therefore, it cannot be
stated that the deceased employee’s family is in indigent circumstances.
9. Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the appellant has not raised any legally sustainable ground to
interfere with the order passed by the Writ Court. Hence the writ appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
[J.N.B., J.] [S.S.Y., J.]
08.04.2025
Index : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
To
1.The Commissioner,
Commissioner of Revenue Administrative
and Disaster Management,
Chepauk, Chennai-5.
2.The Assistant Director (Panchayats),
Department of Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj,
Virudhunagar.
3.The District Collector,
Collectorate Campus,
Virudhunagar.
4.The Block Development Officer,
Watrap Panchayat Union,
Watrap.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
J.NISHA BANU, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
Tmg
08.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/04/2025 03:36:28 pm )
