Madras High Court
J.Prakash vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 19 September, 2025
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan, R.Vijayakumar
2025:MHC:2237
W.A(MD).No.297 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 15.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.09.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.A(MD).No.297 of 2018
J.Prakash ...Appellant/Petitioner
Vs
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by its Principal Secretary
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai.
3.Rajapalayam Municipality
Rep. by its Commissioner
Rajapalayam
Virudhunagar District ...Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the
order dated 04.01.2018 made in in WP(MD).No.16525 of 2013 on the file of
this Court.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
W.A(MD).No.297 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondents : Mr.V.Om Prakash
Government Advocate for R1 & R2
: Mr.N.Dilip Kumar for R3
JUDGMENT
(Made by R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.)
The petitioner in WP(MD).No.16525 of 2013 has filed the present writ
appeal challenging the dismissal of his writ petition wherein the prayer of the
seeking compassionate appointment was rejected.
2.The petitioner's father was employed as an NMR on daily wages
basis as a Pump Room Operator in the third respondent municipality. While
in service, he had passed away on 22.09.2003. The petitioner's mother has
given a request for compassionate appointment on 25.01.2008 to the
concerned municipality. Since there was no response, a representation was
sent to the Chief Minister Special Cell on 26.02.2008. On 08.05.2008, the
request of the petitioner's mother was rejected on the ground that the
application was not presented within a period of three years from the date of
death of an employee and the deceased employee was not a permanent
employee. This was also communicated to the petitioner's mother. However,
this order was not put to challenge.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
3.The petitioner's mother has given another request during the
Grievance Redressal Day on 05.03.2010. This application was rejected by
way of an order dated 24.03.2010 by the third respondent and it was also
communicated to the writ petitioner's mother. Referring to the communication
dated 24.03.2010, the petitioner's mother has sent another representation to
the third respondent on 31.07.2013 seeking compassionate appointment
pointing out that the employees who are similarly placed on par with her
husband have been regularized and therefore, the rejection of request for
compassionate appointment on the said ground is not valid. This
representation was again rejected under the impugned order dated 23.08.2013
pointing out that the application was not filed within a period of three years
from the date of death of the employee and already 10 years have elapsed
from the date of death of the employee. The order dated 23.08.20213 was put
to challenge in the above writ petition.
4.This Court by an order dated 04.01.2018 had dismissed the writ
petition primarily on the ground that the deceased employee was a temporary
employee and the scheme of compassionate appointment cannot be extended
to the legal heirs of such temporary employees. Challenging the said order,
the present writ appeal has been filed by the writ petitioner.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that name
of the petitioner's father along with others was recommended for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
regularisation of services. In fact, an order of regularisation has been passed
in respect of similarly placed employees by way of G.O.(Ms).No.21
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC3) Department dated
23.02.2006. Had the petitioner's father was alive, he would also been
regularized. He had further submitted that the petitioner's father had put in
more than 20 years of service as an NMR at the time of his death. Therefore,
the writ Court was not right in rejecting the writ petition on the said ground.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted that there
was a ban for fresh appointment between 2001 to 2006. Therefore, the
application seeking compassionate appointment could not be submitted
immediately after the death of the employee. Only in those circumstances, the
application was presented on 25.01.2008. Therefore, there is no delay in
submitting an application seeking compassionate appointment.
7.The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted that the
rejection order dated 08.05.2008 communicated to the Chief Minister Special
Cell and the order dated 24.03.2010 are merely opinion and they cannot be
construed to be administrative or quasi judicial orders. He relied upon a
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (5) CTC 108
(R.Sulochana Devi Vs.D.M.Sujatha and others) in support of his
contentions. Therefore, the non challenging of those orders would not in any
way be a legal bar for the petitioner to challenge the present impugned order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
dated 23.08.2013.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant had further submitted that the
writ Court had dismissed the writ petition solely on the ground that the
petitioner's father was the temporary employee and therefore, the legal heirs
would not be entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground. No other
ground has been assigned by the writ Court. According to him, when it has
been demonstrated that the similarly placed persons like that of the father of
the petitioner have been regularised, the said ground will not stand the
scrutiny of law and hence, he prayed for allowing the writ appeal.
9.Per contra, the learned counsel for the third respondent municipality
submitted that the application seeking compassionate appointment was
presented five years after the date of death of the employee. The said request
was rejected by way of an order dated 08.05.2008 which was communicated
to the writ petitioner's mother. Another request was forwarded to the
municipality during the Grievance Redressal Day on 05.03.2010 and the
same was rejected on 24.03.2010 by the third respondent. These two orders
cannot be considered to be an opinion, but they are administrative orders
rejecting the request of the petitioner's mother. Without challenging the same,
a third request was made on 12.08.2013 which was rejected under the
impugned order dated 23.08.2013. In such circumstances, the writ petition
filed challenging the third impugned order would not be maintainable without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
challenging the first two impugned orders.
10.The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the
application has not been presented within a period of three years from the
date of death of the employee. Though the petitioner has assigned some
reason like that of an subsistence of a ban order, the same has not been
substantiated by way of records. He had further submitted that the ban order
was only for issuing appointment order and it would not in any way prevent
the aspirant to submit an application seeking compassionate appointment.
Hence, he prayed for confirming the order passed by the writ Court.
11.We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side
and perused the material records.
12.The petitioner's father had passed away on 22.09.2003 while he was
an NMR employee in the third respondent municipality. As per Government
order prevailing then, the application seeking compassionate appointment has
to be presented within a period of three years from the date of death of an
employee. Admittedly, the application has been presented only on 25.01.2008
after a period of five years. Even assuming that there was a ban order
between 2001 to 2006, the application having been presented two years after
lifting of the ban order, can be considered only as a delayed application.
13.The petitioner's mother had given an application to the Chief
Minister Special Cell on 26.02.2008. The Director of Municipal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
Administration after calling for remarks from the third respondent
municipality has issued a communication to the Chief Minister Special Cell
on 08.05.2008 pointing out that the request for compassionate appointment
has been rejected on the ground that the application has not be presented
within a period of three years. A copy of the same has also been marked to the
writ petitioner's mother.
14.Two years after the above said order, on 05.03.2010 another request
was made by the petitioner's mother seeking compassionate appointment. The
same has been rejected by way of an order passed by the third respondent on
24.03.2010. A perusal of these two orders would clearly reflect that they are
not mere opinion, but they are administrative orders which are subject to
judicial review. However, the petitioner or his mother had not chosen to
challenge these two orders for reasons best known to them.
15.The petitioner's mother after referring to the order dated 24.03.2010,
had resurrected the request by sending a letter dated 12.08.2013. This request
has been returned down under the impugned order dated 23.08.2013.
Therefore, it is clear that even after rejection order dated 24.03.2010, the
petitioner or his mother have not chosen to send another request within a
period of three years. There is no explanation whatsoever for the above said
delay.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
16.Even assuming that the petitioner's father was a regular employee,
unexplained delay would clearly disentitle the petitioner from seeking
compassionate appointment. In such circumstances, we are inclined to
confirm the order of dismissal passed by the writ Court though for different
reasons.
17.In view of the above said deliberations, there are no merits in the
writ appeal and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
(C.V.K.J.,) (R.V.J.,)
19.09.2025.
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
NCC : Yes/No
msa
To
1.The Principal Secretary
The Government of Tamil Nadu
Municipal Administration and
Water Supply Department
Fort St.George, Secretariat
Chennai 600 009
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration
Ezhilagam, Chepauk
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
AND
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
msa
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
19.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/09/2025 03:23:09 pm )
