Dismissed¶8

Namasivayam v. The District Collector

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) – Compassionate appointment

Madras HC14 Oct 2025WA(MD)/2918/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; Tamil Nadu; G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and Employment (Q1) Department dated 23.01.2020; three-year time limit from date of demise of government servant; death of father Gurunathan 24.06.2009; application made 2022 after attaining majority; sister's request rejected 23.02.2016 (minority) unchallenged, attained finality; W.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2023 dismissed 12.06.2024; writ appeal under Clause XV Letters Patent dismissed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; District Collector Trichy; Thasildar Thottiam Taluk.

What did the court decide?

The demise of the appellant's father in 2009 does not comprise a continuous cause of action or entitlement for compassionate appointment; the appellant's request is not liable to be acceded to. ¶5

Namasivayam Vs The District Collector — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, who sought compassionate appointment in 2022 upon attaining majority premised on his father's death in 2009, is entitled to such appointment, and whether the writ appeal should be allowed setting aside the single Judge's dismissal in W.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2023. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The demise of the appellant's father in 2009 does not comprise a continuous cause of action or entitlement for compassionate appointment; the appellant's request is not liable to be acceded to.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

Grant of compassionate appointment is governed by G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, which prescribes a three-year time limit from the date of demise of the government servant within which the application must be preferred.

¶6

Key takeaways

The appellant's application was made only in 2022, premised on the demise of his father in 2009, and thus fell outside the prescribed period.ratio¶7
The intervening application made by the appellant's mother on behalf of his sister came to be dismissed, and that order has attained finality.ratio¶7
In light of the discussion, the Division Bench found no merit in the writ appeal and dismissed it, with no costs.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Madurai Bench, Madras High Court) - Compassionate appointment - Appellant Namasivayam sought compassionate appointment in 2022 upon attaining majority, premised on the death of his father Gurunathan on 24.06.2009 - His mother's earlier request of 17.08.2010 for the appellant's sister had been rejected on 23.02.2016 on the ground that the sister was a minor when the application was made, and that unchallenged order attained finality - Grant of compassionate appointment governed by G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, prescribing a three-year time limit from the date of demise of the government servant - Held: the father's demise in 2009 does not comprise a continuous cause of action or entitlement for compassionate appointment; application made only in 2022 fell outside the limit - Single Judge's dismissal in W.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2023 (order dated 12.06.2024) upheld - Writ appeal dismissed. No costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.2918 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 14.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶7

W.A.(MD)No.2918 of 2025

Namasivayam

...Appellant

/Vs./

The District Collector, O/o. District Collectorate, Trichy District, Trichy.

¶12

The Thasildar, Thottiam Taluk, Trichy District. ...Respondents

¶13

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal - filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent Act, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.10926 of 2023 dated 12.06.2024 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.

¶14

For Appellant : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan for Ms.J.Madhu For Respondents : Mr.D.Sadiq Raja Additional Government Pleader

¶15

1/6

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.A.(MD)No.2918 of 2025

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

¶20

The writ petitioner is the appellant. Challenge in the writ petition was to the proceedings dated 09.09.2022 rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶21

We have heard the submissions of Mr.S.Muthukrishnan,

¶22

learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶23

Father of the appellant was one Gurunathan, who had passed away on 24.06.2009. The mother of the appellant sought compassionate appointment on 17.08.2010 for the sister of the appellant and that request had been rejected on 23.02.2016 on the ground that when the application had been made, the appellant's sister was a minor and that order has not been challenged.

¶24

2/6

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.A.(MD)No.2918 of 2025

¶27

While so, the appellant attained majority in 2022 and sought

¶28

compassionate appointment in place of his father, which application was rejected, as against which, the writ petition was instituted. The learned Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the order dated 23.02.2016 had not been challenged.

¶29

We are of the view that the request of the appellant is not liable to be acceded to, as the demise of his father in 2009 does not comprise a continuous cause of action or entitlement for compassionate appointment.

¶30

The grant of compassionate appointment is governed by G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, which provides for a time limit of three years, from the date of demise of the government servant, within which the application seeking compassionate appointment should be preferred.

¶31

In the present case, the application of the appellant had been made only in 2022, premised on the demise of his father, which was in 2009. That apart, the intervening application made by the appellant's mother on behalf of his sister came to be dismissed, which order has also

¶32

3/6

¶33

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶34

W.A.(MD)No.2918 of 2025

¶35

attained finality.

¶36