Madras High Court
M.Saravanakumar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 June, 2025
W.P.(MD)No.460 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
W.P.(MD) No.460 of 2025
and
WMP (MD) Nos.316 and 318 of 2025
M.Saravanakumar : Petitioner
Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to
Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Adi Dravidar
and Tribal Welfare Officer,
Thoothukudi District,
Collectorate Campus,
Thoothukudi. : Respondents
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
W.P.(MD)No.460 of 2025
PRAYER: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records on the file of the 2nd Respondent in connection with the
impugned order passed in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.Ra3/28990/2023
dated 28.11.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the
Respondents to appoint the petitioner under compassionate ground in any
suitable post in Class - IV Service based on his educational qualification
within the time limit that may be stipulated by this Honourable Court.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Gurunathan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Siddharthan
Addl. Government Pleader
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed challenging the rejection
order passed by the second respondent dated 28.11.2023 and
consequently, to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner under
compassionate ground in any suitable post in Class - IV Service based on
his educational qualification.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner's father was appointed as a Sweeper on 11.01.2023 on a
consolidated pay of Rs.2,000/- and was subsequently brought under the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
Special Time Scale of Pay vide G.O.Ms.No.81, Adi Dravidar Welfare
Department, dated 10.08.2020. The petitioner's father passed away on
27.03.2023, leaving behind the petitioner, the petitioner's mother and his
sister. Consequently, the petitioner submitted an application for
compassionate appointment on 13.09.2023, which was scrutinized by the
third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent sought clarification
from the second respondent regarding the inclusion of the petitioner's
name in the seniority list for compassionate appointment, by way of
proceedings dated 02.11.2023. However, without considering the said
proposal, the second respondent rejected the application by relying on
G.O.Ms.No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1) Department,
dated 09.03.2023, through proceedings dated 28.11.2023.
3. The petitioner contends that the second respondent treated
the petitioner's father as if he were appointed on a contract basis, without
taking into account the fact that he had subsequently been brought under
the Special Time Scale of Pay, thereby rendering his post indispensable
and permanent in nature.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon
a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 19.09.2024 in W.A.(MD)
No.1077 of 2022 [V.Balamurugan v. The District Collector, Dindigul
and Others], wherein this Court held as under:
“ 9. A reading of the above would show
that the persons, who are working as Sweepers
in the Panchayats were placed under a special
time scale of pay with the intention of
regularizing their services and integrating
them into the regular service. If that is the
Government's intention, then, Sweepers
granted a special time scale of pay should be
considered as regular employees for all
practical purposes. Therefore, the ground on
which the appellant's claim was rejected by the
authority and confirmed by the Writ Court is
imaginary, stemming from a misinterpretation
of G.O.(Ms)No.39, Rural Development and
Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
07.05.2013.
10. No doubt, compassionate
appointment cannot be considered a bounty. At
the same time, the benefit should be extended to
the deserving heirs of individuals, who had
served the Government. As we had already
pointed out, the father of the appellant served
the Government as a Sweeper for 26 long years
without any break. Denying the benefit to such
a person would, in our opinion, project the
Government as well as this Court in a bad
light.”
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader vehemently
opposes the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and submits that the claim for compassionate appointment has been
rightly rejected by the second respondent in accordance with the
prevailing Government Orders and policy. He further contends that the
compassionate appointment scheme is an exception to the general
recruitment process and must be strictly construed in accordance with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
eligibility criteria and government policy in force at the time of the
application. In this regard, G.O.Ms.No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill
Development (Q1) Department, dated 09.03.2023, clearly stipulates that
individuals appointed on a contract/consolidated pay basis are not
entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
6. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made on
either side, materials placed on record and also taking in to consideration
the Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.(MD) No.1077 of
2022 [V.Balamurugan v. The District Collector, Dindigul and Others],
dated 19.09.2024, this Court finds merit in the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's
father was initially appointed on a consolidated pay but however, he was
subsequently brought under the Special Time Scale of Pay vide
G.O.Ms.No.81, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, dated 10.08.2020. The
respondents have rejected the petitioner’s application solely based on
G.O.Ms.No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1) Department,
dated 09.03.2023, without considering the factual distinction that the
petitioner's father was no longer serving under a purely contractual
arrangement at the time of his demise. The rejection order dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
28.11.2023, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and is liable
to be set aside.
7. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated
28.11.2023 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
respondent. The concerned respondent is directed to consider the case of
the petitioner in the light of the judgment of this Court dated 19.09.2024
(cited supra) and pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law,
after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner,
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.
8. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above
directions. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
03.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
To
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary to
Government,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare Department,
Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner,
Adi Dravidar and Tribal Welfare
Department,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai - 600 005.
3. The District Adi Dravidar
and Tribal Welfare Officer,
Thoothukudi District,
Collectorate Campus,
Thoothukudi.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
PKN
03.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/06/2025 11:03:39 am )
