Son of a deceased postman sought compassionate appointment in the postal department; his application was rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee on relative merit grounds. The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's dismissal was rejected, with the court affirming that compassionate appointment is a concession, not an absolute right.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
T.Suresh
... Petitioner
Vs.
... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3 rd respondent in OA.No.698 of 2016 dated 12.09.2018 and quash the same and direct the respondents 1 and 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable job and grant him all consequential benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajendran For R1 & R2 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Additional Solicitor General of India Assisted by Mr.N.Ramesh Senior Panel Counsel For R3 : Tribunal
O R D E R
[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]
Under assail is the order dated 12th September, 2018 passed in OA/310/00698/2016 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench.
compassionate grounds due to the death of his father, Late Mr.G.Thulasiraman, who worked as Postman at Triplicane Sub Office, Chennai. The father of the petitioner died on 23.07.2002, leaving behind his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
family in indigent circumstances.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
account of sudden death of his father. After constituting the Circle Relaxation Committee during the earlier 2015, the case of the petitioner was placed for consideration and it was not recommended on the ground that the family of the petitioner is less indigent as per the relative merit point under RRR quota. The petitioner filed O.A.No.689 of 2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal on 12.09.2018, which resulted in institution of the present writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
an absolute right. The scheme is not falling under the constitutional scheme of appointments. Scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, appointment on compassionate grounds are to be made scrupulously, adhering to the eligibility criteria fixed under the scheme by the Union of India.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
only to the extent of providing employment assistance to the most deserving families to be identified by following the eligibility criteria fixed by the employor concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 7 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
for the purpose of providing an appointment on compassionate ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
18. With the above observations, the order impugned passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal / 3 rd respondent in OA.No.698 of 2016 dated
12.09.2018 stands confirmed and the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 04.11.2024 (2/2)
Index : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes
Jeni
To
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 10
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
Jeni
W.P.No.14020 of 2019
04.11.2024 (2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's rejection of compassionate appointment on relative merit grounds was valid despite the petitioner's timely application.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
T.Suresh
The Union of India, Represented by The Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle
The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City Central Division
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench
S.M.Subramaniam
M.Jothiraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
