Madras High Court
S.Nallarasu vs The Secretary To The Government on 27 February, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
W.A.MD) No.1437 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
W.A(MD)No.1437 of 2019
S.Nallarasu ... Appellant/
Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Department of Revenue,
St.Fort George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karur.
4.The Tahsildar,
Aravakurichi Taluk,
Karur District. Respondents/
Respondents
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 10:49:16 am )
W.A.MD) No.1437 of 2018
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters of Patent Appeal,
against the order dated 09.08.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.17684 of 2018 passed by
this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.C.M.Mari Chelliah Prabhu
For Respondents : Mr.D.Gandhiraj
Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner, being aggreived by the dismissal
of the writ petition for issuance of Mandamus to consider the application for
compassionate appointment.
2.The appellant's father viz., Sathasivam, was working as Village
Administrative Officer at Pungampadi Melapagam Village, while he was in
service, died on 06.05.2007, leaving behind his two children viz., the writ
petitioner and his elder sister. After attaining majority, an application for
compassionate appointment for the petitioner was made on 27.06.2016. The
learned Single Judge, taking note of the fact that there was a long gap of 20 years
between the death and the application and dismissed the writ petition. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 10:49:16 am )
learned Single Judge also taken note of the fact that the earlier application made
for compassionate appointment by the sister of the writ petitioner was rejected on
the ground that she had not attained majority.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant primarily contended that
the learned Single Judge failed to take note of the fact that the writ petitioner
attained majority only on 26.08.2013 and he made an application for
compassionate appointment on 27.06.2016 which is well within the period of 3
years. Therefore, under the scheme of compassionate appointment, the application
ought not to have rejected by the authority and the learned Single Judge should
have taken note of the fact that there was no delay in making the application. He
would submit that under the wrong impression that there was 20 years delay in
making the application, the writ petition been dismissed.
4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit
when the employee demised in the year 2007 his wife was fully eligible to seek
compassionate appointment but she did not apply, which will indicate the family
was not in any necessity of financial assistance. After few years, the elder
daughter of the deceased made an application when she was hardly 14 year but
later, she got married. The writ petitioner, who did not apply immediately for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 10:49:16 am )
compassionate appointment, waited for further 3 years and made an application on
27.06.2016. Considering the fact that the employee died on 06.05.2007 and the
application for compassionate appointment was made on 27.06.2016, the request
of the writ petitioner was not considered.
5.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent as
well as the learned Single Judge ought to have taken note of the earlier application
made by the writ petitioner's sister on 14.07.2008 and also ought to have taken
note of the fact that an application of the writ petitioner was made within 3 years
from he attained majority.
6.This Court finds that though the submission of the appellant is
substantially correct hower in view of the fact that the compassionate appointment
is not a right conferred on the legal representative of the deceased Government
employee and on the failure of the wife of the deceased not making any
application for compassionate appointment immediately after the demise of the
employee, when she was fully employed for compassionate appointment is to be
taken note. The conduct of the appellant would only lead to infer that soon after
the death of the employee his family was not in dire need of any financial
assistance. Therefore at this length of time, entertaining the application for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 10:49:16 am )
compassionate appointment may not be proper.
7.For the aforesaid reason, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs.
[G.J., J.] & [R.P., J.]
27.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Ns
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Department of Revenue,
St.Fort George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Karur District,
Karur.
3.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
O/o.The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Karur.
4.The Tahsildar,
Aravakurichi Taluk,
Karur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 10:49:16 am )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
AND
R.POORNIMA, J.
Ns
27.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/03/2025 10:49:16 am )
