[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

Union Of India vs T Shanthi on 6 March, 2026

Author: C.V. Karthikeyan

Bench: C.V. Karthikeyan

                                                                                           WP No. 36168 of 2024


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



                                        RESERVED ON               :          18.02.2026


                                        PRONOUNCED ON :                       06.03.2026

                                                         CORAM
                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
                                                            AND
                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
                                              WP No. 36168 of 2024
                                                      and
                                             W.M.P.No.39053 of 2024

                1. Union of India
                   Rep.by the Chief Postmaster General,
                   Tamil Nadu Circle, Anna Salai,
                   Chennai-600 002.

                2. The Postmaster General,
                   Chennai City Region, Chennai-600 002.

                3. The Senior Superintendent of Post officers,
                   Chennai City Central Division,
                   Chennai-600 017.

                                                                                             ..Petitioner(s)
                                                              Vs
                1. T Shanthi
                   W/o.Late R.Thirugnanamani, Worked As
                   Postman, No. 22/46, Jayalakshmi Puram 4th
                   Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 034.

                2. R T Ganeshkumar,
                   S/o.Late R.Thirugnanamani, No.22/46,
                   JayalakshmiPuram 4th Street, Nungabakkam
                   Chennai -600 034.
                                                                                                   __________
                                                                                                    Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:10 pm )
                                                                                             WP No. 36168 of 2024




                3. Central Administrative Tribunal,
                   Chennai Bench, Rep.by its Registrar,
                   Madras High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.

                                                                                             ..Respondent(s)



                Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
                praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records from the Central
                Administrative Tribunal, Chennai relating to its order dated 18.04.2023 in
                OA/310/00331/2023 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without
                jurisdiction
                              For Petitioner(s):               Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy

                              For Respondent(s):               Ms.L.Parvinbanu
                                                               (For R1 & R2)

                                                               R-3 Tribunal


                                                               ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by K.Kumaresh Babu J.)

The present writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the

3rd respondent /Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, dated 18.04.2023

made in OA/310/00331/2023.

2. Heard Mr.K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Ms.L.Parvinbanu, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

__________ Page2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:10 pm )

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the

father of the 2nd respondent, who was working as a Postman, had died in service.

An application for Compassionate appointment was originally sought by the

first respondent for her elder son. The claim was considered as per the scheme

that was introduced, whereunder Relative Merit Point (hereinafter referred to as

‘RMP’) would be given in the carved out percentage of 5% in the vacancies that

has to be filled up by direct recruitment to be filled up through compassionate

appointment.

4. The claim for compassionate appointment of the elder son of the first

respondent was reviewed by Circle Relaxation Committee (hereinafter referred

to as ‘CRC’) and he was awarded an RMP of 64. Under the compassionate

appointment scheme for the year 2012, the first son could not be

accommodated, as he had been given an RMP much less than the last of the

candidates, who was selected to the post of PA/SA, PM, MTS. Therefore, the

claim for compassionate appointment was again taken up by the CRC in the

year 2015 and even then the RMP awarded was less than that of the last selected

candidates to the said posts. The claim for compassionate appointment was for

the third time placed before the CRC convened in 2019-2020, where again also,

the RMP awarded to the elder son of the first respondent was less than the last

candidate selected and therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment came

to be rejected.

__________ Page3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:10 pm )

5. After the order of rejection, the first respondent had made an

application for compassionate appointment in favour of the second respondent,

who is the third son of the deceased and had approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal, where the Central Administrative Tribunal, without

appreciating the above facts, had erred in holding that the claim had been only

placed once in the CRC, had directed placement of the claim for compassionate

appointment in the next CRC.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is also to be

noted that there is no procedure for a requested change of candidates for

compassionate appointment, that too in a case, where already rejection has been

made for compassionate appointment that arose out of the death of the second

respondent’s father. Hence he seeks indulgence of this Court in the order

impugned in this writ petition.

7. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, would submit that after the death of the

employee, who is the husband of the first respondent and father of the second

respondent, the family had been suffering under penurious conditions. She

would submit that originally an application was submitted by the first

respondent, seeking for compassionate appointment for her elder son as early as __________ Page4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:10 pm )

in 2008 and the claim had not been considered by the CRC. In the interregnum,

the elder son of the first respondent had expressed his inability to take up

responsibilities as he was physically challenged. Thereafter, an application was

made by the first respondent, seeking compassionate appointment for the 2 nd

respondent. She would submit that the RMP that was awarded to the elder son

was wholly without appreciating the penurious conditions of the family and

therefore, his rejection is improper and the claim of the respondents 1 and 2

ought to have been considered in the proper perspective. Only appreciating the

claim made by the respondents, a direction had been issued by the Tribunal to

consider the claim of the respondents by placing their request for compassionate

appointment in the next CRC. Without placing the same before the next CRC,

the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the writ petition. Hence, she

seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. The husband of the first respondent had died, while in service, upon

which an application for grant of compassionate appointment was originally

made by the first respondent seeking compassionate appointment for her elder

son one R.T.Kavivanan. It is also admitted that the claim for compassionate

appointment for the elder son was considered by the CRC in the year 2012, __________ Page5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:10 pm )

2015 and 2020 and the RMP awarded to him in each of the CRCs. The RMP

assigned to him did not meet the last merit point of the candidate selected for

compassionate appointment in the respective years. Even though an attempt has

been made to challenge the same in the present proceedings by the respondents,

no specific plea has been made as to how there was a omission to grant RMP,

while considering the application in respect of the elder son of the first

respondent. The elder son has also not challenged such grant of RMP in respect

of his application.

10. We had occasion to deal with the similar issue in W.P.No.20758 of

2024, wherein an Office Memorandum, indicating that only for three times, an

application could be taken up for consideration for grant of compassionate

appointment was placed before this Court. Relying upon the said memorandum,

we had also held that such claim for compassionate appointment cannot be

considered in perpetuity and when an applicant does not secure sufficient RMP

atleast in three consecutive CRC’s, the case must give way for fresh applicants,

as the 5% vacancies carved out from direct recruitment is less than the number

of applicants, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

11. We are of the considered view that the aforesaid judgment also

squarely applies to the facts of the present case, as the claim of the first

respondent for appointment of the elder son had been considered in three CRC’s __________ Page6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/03/2026 06:14:10 pm )

and he had not been recommended in any of the CRC’s. The present attempt

made by the first respondent seeking appointment to the 2 nd respondent is only

an attempt to circumvent the scheme of compassionate appointment and the

Tribunal had wholly erred in not considering the facts of the case in the proper

perspective.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition stands allowed and the

impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent/Tribunal vide order dated

18.04.2023 in OA/310/00331/2023 stands set aside. However, there shall be no

order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

(C.V.K.,J.) (K.B.,J.) 06-03-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes

kak

1. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Madras High Court Campus, Chennai-600 104.