Dismissed¶34

Sarath Kumar v. The Chairman

Madras HC8 Jul 2026WA/1260/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

compassionate appointment; TANGEDCO; three-year time limit reckoned from date of death of deceased employee; second application by same legal heir inadmissible; concession not absolute right; strict implementation of scheme terms; indigent circumstances factual verification not mere Tahsildar certificate; Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India; no merit assessment or reservation; writ appeal dismissed no costs; W.A.NO.1260 OF 2023; W.P.No.6728 of 2022; order dated 24.03.2022; High Court of Judicature at Madras; Clause 15 Letters Patent; S.M.Subramaniam J.; N.Senthilkumar J.; decision date 08.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

An eligible legal heir of a deceased employee may submit an application for compassionate appointment within a period of three years from the date of the death of the deceased employee. ¶27

Sarath Kumar Vs The Chairman — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether a second application for compassionate appointment submitted beyond the stipulated three-year period from the date of death of the deceased employee is admissible under the scheme. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

An eligible legal heir of a deceased employee may submit an application for compassionate appointment within a period of three years from the date of the death of the deceased employee.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

A second application for compassionate appointment made by the same legal heir beyond the period of three years is inadmissible under the terms and conditions of the scheme.

¶27

Key takeaways

Since the appellant submitted his application after a lapse of six years from the date of death of his father, the Court found no reason to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal.ratio¶27
Seeking appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not an absolute right; the scheme is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated.ratio¶28-29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Clause 15, Letters Patent) dismissed by the Madras High Court (judgment by S.M. Subramaniam, J., with N. Senthilkumar, J.) on 08.07.2026, upholding the writ order dated 24.03.2022 in W.P.No.6728 of 2022 rejecting the appellant Sarath Kumar's claim to compassionate appointment with TANGEDCO. The appellant, son of employee Late Selvam who died in service on 16.02.2013, first applied on 03.11.2014 (rejected as a minor) and again on 14.10.2019 after attaining majority (rejected as outside the stipulated three-year period from the date of death). Held: compassionate-appointment applications must be submitted within three years of the employee's death; a second application beyond that period is inadmissible under the scheme's terms; the scheme is a concession, not an absolute right, to be strictly implemented per its stipulated terms. The Court further observed (obiter) that indigence must be established on factual aspects and not merely by a Tahsildar's certificate, and stated that compassionate appointment, involving no assessment of merit or reservation, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Finding no infirmity in the writ order, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶1

W.A.NO.1260 OF 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

W.A.NO.1260 OF 2023

¶7

Sarath Kumar

¶8

… Appellant Vs.

¶9

1.The Chairman TANGEDCO

¶10

No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶11

2.The Chief Engineer (Personnel) TANGEDCO No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶12

3.The Superintending Engineer Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle TANGEDCO Kancheepuram District. … Respondents

¶13

PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.6728 of 2022.

¶14

For Appellant : Ms.R.Divya for Mr.B.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.Sheik Thaveer Ahamed for Mr.K.Rajkumar

¶15

Page No.1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

W.A.NO.1260 OF 2023

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)

¶20

The writ order dated 24.03.2022 passed in W.P.No.6728 of

¶21

2022 is under challenge in the present intra court appeal. The writ petitioner is the appellant before this Court.

¶22

2. The father of the writ petitioner Late. Selvam, served in the

¶23

respondent – Board and died on 16.02.2013, while he was in service. At the time of death of the employee, the appellant was aged about 13 years. He submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 03.11.2014. The said application was rejected vide order dated 12.01.2015 on the ground that the appellant was a minor. Again, after a lapse of four years and on attaining the age of majority, the appellant submitted another application dated 14.10.2019 seeking appointment on compassionate ground and the said application was also rejected on the ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated period of three years from the date of death of the deceased employee.

¶24

Page No.2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

W.A.NO.1260 OF 2023

¶27

3.The period of three years is reckoned from the date of death of the deceased employee. Therefore, an eligible legal heir of the deceased employee may submit an application for compassionate appointment within a period of three years from the date of the death of the deceased employee. Second application made by the same legal heir, beyond the period of three years, is inadmissible under the terms and conditions of the scheme. That apart, the appellant submitted an application after a lapse of six years from the date of death of his father and thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order impugned in the present appeal.

¶28

4.Pertinently, seeking appointment on compassionate

¶29

ground is a concession and not an absolute right. The scheme is to be implemented strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated. If at all an eligible legal heir of the deceased employee submits an application within a period of three years from the date of the employee's death, such application shall be considered strictly in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed under the compassionate appointment scheme. Indigent circumstances are

¶30

Page No.3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

W.A.NO.1260 OF 2023

¶33

required to be established not merely by producing a Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, but based on the factual aspects. The Authorities Competent are bound to verify the indigent circumstances, since appointment on compassionate grounds, are provided only to the deserving families.

¶34

5.Appointment on compassionate grounds is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, since there is no assessment of merit or rule of reservation followed. In the present case, the writ Court considered the scope of the scheme and dismissed the writ petition. This Court does not find any infirmity in the writ order. Consequently, the writ appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

[S.M.S., J.] [N.S., J.]

¶36

08.07.2026

¶37

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

¶38

Page No.4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

W.A.NO.1260 OF 2023