Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

P.Anbazhagan Vs the Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
P.Anbazhagan Vs the SecretaryP.Anbazhagan v. the Secretary

Disposed¶¶31

P.Anbazhagan v. the Secretary

Writ Petition (Mandamus) – Compassionate appointment

Madras HC3 Sept 2025WP/33339/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, W.P.No.33339 of 2025 (decided 03.09.2025), Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira. Petitioner P.Anbazhagan sought mandamus directing the Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu (Municipal Administration) and the Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai to consider his 03.05.2025 representation for compassionate appointment on account of his deceased father's service. Respondents contended he had crossed the age limit. Court held the authority must still reply and decide the representation; directed consideration within six weeks without expressing any view on merits. Keywords: compassionate appointment, age limit, mandamus, representation pending, six weeks, Tamil Nadu, Greater Chennai Corporation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2025 and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs awarded.

Why is it important?

Even though the petitioner has crossed the age limit for compassionate appointment, the respondents are bound to send a reply and cannot keep the petitioner's representation pending without passing any orders. ¶¶25

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2025 and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs awarded.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are obliged to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2025 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

Court's answer

Even though the petitioner has crossed the age limit for compassionate appointment, the respondents are bound to send a reply and cannot keep the petitioner's representation pending without passing any orders.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the case, the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2025 and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within six weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; the writ petition stands disposed of with no costs.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Mandamus) — Compassionate appointment — Representation dated 03.05.2025 by son of deceased employee kept pending — Held, though the petitioner has crossed the age limit for compassionate appointment, the respondents are bound to send a reply and cannot keep the representation pending without passing orders — Without going into merits, respondents directed to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law within six weeks — Writ petition disposed of, no costs.

A

W.P.No.33339 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.09.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA W.P.No.33339 of 2025

P.Anbazhagan

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Fort St. George,

Chennai – 600 009.

The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Ribbon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 03.05.2025 to appoint him on compassionate grounds.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Sundaramurthy

For Respondents : Mr.C.Selvaraj, Additional Government Pleader for R1 Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, Standing Counsel for R2

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner representation dated 03.05.2025 to appoint him on compassionate grounds.

1 of 4

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

W.P.No.33339 of 2025

2. Mr.C.Selvaraj, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice for the first respondent and Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the second Respondent.

By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal today at the admission stage itself.

The case of the petitioner is that he sent a representation, dated 03.05.2025, to the respondents to consider him for appoint him on compassionate ground in respect of the work done by his deceased father. However, his representation has not been considered till date. Hence this Writ Petition.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner has crossed the age limit and thereby he is not entitled for compassionate appointment in the respondent department.

Though the fact remains that the petitioner has crossed the age limit for compassionate appointment, the respondents are bound to send a reply and cannot keep the representation of the petitioner pending, without passing any orders.

2 of 4

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

W.P.No.33339 of 2025

In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case,

this Court directs the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.05.2025 a nd pass appropriate orders on its own merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of.

No costs.

03.09.2025

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes / No vum

To

The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.

The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Ribbon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

3 of 4

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

W.P.No.33339 of 2025

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.,

vum

W.P.No.33339 of 2025

03.09.2025

4 of 4

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the respondents are obliged to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation dated 03.05.2025 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.¶¶17
The court held
Even though the petitioner has crossed the age limit for compassionate appointment, the respondents are bound to send a reply and cannot keep the petitioner's representation pending without passing any orders.ratio¶¶25

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶¶13

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner sent a representation dated 03.05.2025 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of the work done by his deceased father; the representation was not considered till date, prompting the writ petition.¶¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
P.Anbazhagan¶¶6
T.Sundaramurthy
respondent
The Secretary, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.¶¶9
C.Selvaraj
respondent
The Commissioner, Corporation of Greater Chennai, Ribbon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.¶¶11
P.T.Ramadevi

Coram

AI extract

A.D.Jagadish Chandiraauthor¶¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 3 Sept 2025 · September
Registered: 29 Aug 2025
Case no.: WP/33339/2025
CNR: HCMA011678222025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: A.d.jagadish Chandira
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: W.P.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from A.d.jagadish Chandira

K.Niranjan Vs the Chairman
2 Sept 2025
A.Perumal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu
2 Sept 2025
K.S.Shanmugam Vs the Registrar
2 Sept 2025
M.Balachander Vs the Superintendent of Police
3 Sept 2025
Parthiban Vs Joseph Diaz, and Another
3 Sept 2025
S.Sathiyabama Vs the State of Tamil Nadu
3 Sept 2025

Cite this judgement

P.Anbazhagan v. the Secretary, WP/33339/2025 (MAD), decided on 3 September 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history1

Petitioner sent a representation dated 03.05.2025 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in respect of the work done by his deceased father; the representation was not considered till date, prompting the writ petition.

View full history

Bench / Coram

A.D.Jagadish Chandira

Parties & counsel