Dismissed¶37

The superintending Engineer v. M.Marimuthu

Madras HC8 Apr 2026WA(MD)/353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (TNEB); part-time sweeper; regularization; regular time scale of pay; absorption into regular service; proceedings dated 01.12.2011; Supreme Court Civil Appeal No.9438 of 2010 dated 26.10.2010; writ appeal under Clause 15 Letters Patent; W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025; W.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2022; Virudhunagar; Watrap Taluk; Koomapatti; reconsideration direction; appeal dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed and connected miscellaneous petition closed, with no order as to costs; the Single Judge's direction stands upheld and the appellants are to consider the respondent's compassionate appointment application subject to all other eligibility criteria under the relevant scheme. ¶37

The superintending Engineer Vs M.Marimuthu — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent/writ petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment notwithstanding that his mother was originally employed as a part-time sweeper whose services were allegedly not regularized, in light of proceedings dated 01.12.2011 bringing her under regular time scale of pay.

¶22

Court's answer

On a perusal of the proceedings dated 01.12.2011, the petitioner's mother was brought under regular time scale of pay and, though originally appointed as a part-time sweeper, was subsequently absorbed into regular service; therefore the appellants' contention that the petitioner is ineligible because his mother was only a part-time employee cannot be sustained.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order rejecting the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment and in directing reconsideration of his application; the Division Bench is not inclined to interfere with that decision.

¶36

Key takeaways

The appellants are directed to consider the application of the respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment upon satisfying all other eligibility criteria under the relevant scheme.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025, decided 08.04.2026 (N.Sathish Kumar, J.; M.Jothiraman, J.): TNEB Superintending Engineer and Junior Engineer appealed against the Single Judge's order dated 06.06.2024 in W.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2022, which had set aside the rejection of M.Marimuthu's compassionate appointment application and directed reconsideration. Appellants contended that legal heirs of persons engaged on temporary, daily-wage, contract or part-time basis without regularization are ineligible under the applicable scheme. Examining proceedings dated 01.12.2011, issued pursuant to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's orders in Civil Appeal No.9438 of 2010 dated 26.10.2010, the Division Bench found the petitioner's mother, though originally a part-time sweeper, had been brought under regular time scale of pay and absorbed into regular service; the part-time objection therefore could not be sustained. The Single Judge was upheld, the writ appeal was dismissed, the connected miscellaneous petition closed, and the appellants were directed to consider the application upon satisfaction of all other eligibility criteria under the relevant scheme. No costs.

¶1

W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 08.04.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶6

W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025 and C.M.P.(MD)No.2912 of 2025

¶7

1.The Superintending Engineer,

¶8

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

¶9

2.The Junior Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Distribution Office, Koomapatti, Watrap Taluk, Virudhunagar.

¶10

...Appellants

¶11

Vs.

¶12

M.Marimuthu ...Respondent

¶13

PRAYER:- Writ Appeal – filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set aside the order made in W.P.(MD)No.15174 of 2022 dated 06.06.2024.

¶14

For Appellants : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan Additional Advocate General for Mr.S.Arivalagan

¶15

1/5

¶16

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

¶17

For Respondent : Mr.A.D.Ganeshmoorthi

¶18

ORDER

¶19

W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025

¶20

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶21

This writ appeal is filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, in and by which the order rejection of the application of the respondent/writ petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was rejected and a direction was issued to the appellants to re-consider the application of the writ petitioner.

¶22

2.The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellants submitted that the writ petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment, since her mother was employed only as a part-time sweeper and her services were not regularized. It is contended that, as per the applicable scheme, legal heirs of persons employed on temporary basis, daily wage basis, contract basis, or part-time basis, whose services were not regularized, are not eligible for compassionate appointment. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s application was right. However, the learned Single Judge without considering this aspect has directed the appellants to consider the petitioner's application for 2/5

¶23

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

¶24

W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025

¶25

compassionate appointment. Hence, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

¶26

3.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted

¶27

that the petitioner’s mother, though initially appointed as a part-time sweeper, was subsequently brought under regular time scale of pay pursuant to proceedings dated 01.12.2011 in pursuant to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.9438 of 2010 dated 26.10.2010. Hence, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.

¶28

4.We have carefully considered the submissions made on either

¶29

side and perused the materials available on record, including the proceedings dated 01.12.2011.

¶30

5.A perusal of the proceedings dated 01.12.2011 reveals that

¶31

the petitioner’s mother was brought under regular time scale of pay. Though she was originally appointed as a part-time sweeper, she was subsequently absorbed into regular service. In view of such regularization, the contention of the appellants that the petitioner is not 3/5

¶32

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

¶33

W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025

¶34

eligible on the ground that his mother was only a part-time employee cannot be sustained.

¶35

6.In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned

¶36

Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order rejecting the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment and in directing reconsideration of his application. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the said application. The appellants are directed to consider the application of the respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment upon satisfying all other eligibility criteria under the relevant scheme.

¶37

7.With the above observation, this writ Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶38

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 08.04.2026

¶39

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes ta

¶40

4/5

¶41

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

¶42

W.A.(MD)No.353 of 2025

¶43

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.