The High Court dismissed a writ appeal challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim. The court held the application was barred by the three-year limitation period and noted that the family had not been in immediate financial distress for over 16 years, defeating the purpose of the scheme.
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.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
Kaleeswaran
... Appellant
Vs.
1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
... Respondents
PRAYER:- Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.12738 of 2021 dated 09.03.2022 on the file of this Court and allow the Writ Appeal.
1/6
W.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik For Respondents : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)
The appellant had filed the Writ Petition challenging the order dated 19.05.2021 passed by the District Collector, Sivagangai, rejecting the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment.
2.The father of the appellant was working as a Village Assistant and passed away in harness on 15.06.2009. The appellant's elder brother, one Mr.Sakthiselvan sought compassionate appointment on two occasions ie., on 08.07.2009 and 29.10.2010. Though his applications were considered, he did not opt to avail the compassionate appointment, since he had been employed as a driver in the Transport Corporation in 2013.
2/6
W.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
3.While so, there appears to have been a family dispute, on account of which, the mother of the appellant preferred to pursue compassionate appointment on behalf of the appellant/her younger son. Hence, she submitted an application on 11.07.2011 seeking compassionate appointment for the appellant.
4.Vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A2/Si.Pa.120-2011, dated 21.09.2011, her application had been rejected. However, she did not challenge the same and hence, the rejection of the appellant's mother's application dated 11.07.2011 has become final. Thereafter, the appellant appears to have revived the request by submitting a representation on 23.03.2020. That representation came to the rejected by way of order dated 19.05.2021, assailing which, the writ petition had been filed.
5.The writ Court rejected the plea, being of the opinion that the application was belated, as G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Employment (Q1) Department, dated 23.01.2020, prescribes a limit of three years for submitting an application for compassionate appointment. We agree with the finding of the Writ Court that the application has been rightly
3/6
W.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
rejected, as being beyond time.
6.The writ Court has also rejected the claim on the ground that a subsequent or alternate application cannot be made by another legal heir once one of the legal heirs has applied. G.O. 18 stipulates, under the heading, ‘Alternative Application’, that an application from another legal heir of the deceased employee may be accepted if the original applicant had passed away after making the application.
7.We would think that the provision for receiving an alternate application would also be available in circumstances where the original applicant did not pursue the application for other bonafide and genuine reasons, provided of course, that the subsequent applicant satisfied the eligibility criteria and other conditions stipulated under G.O.Ms.No.18.
8.However, the crucial factor in this case is that the family of the deceased has been able to sustain itself for a period of about 16 years after the demise of the employee in 2009. The very object of providing compassionate appointment is to relieve the family of the deceased employee from immediate financial distress. When the family has been in
4/6
W.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
a position to manage its affairs for such a long period, it cannot be said that the condition of indigence continues to exist, to justify appointment on compassionate grounds even now.
9.For the aforesaid reasons, we sustain the order of the writ Court and the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[A.S.M.J.,] & [C.K.J.,] 25.10.2025
NCC :Yes/No Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ps
To
1.The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai.
2.The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai.
5/6
W.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ps
W.A(MD)No.2994 of 2025
25.10.2025
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a compassionate appointment application submitted more than three years after the employee's death was maintainable under G.O.Ms.No.18?
Whether compassionate appointment was warranted where the family had sustained itself for 16 years after the demise?
Kaleeswaran
The Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai
The District Collector, Sivagangai District, Sivagangai
DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
