Dismissed¶30

G.Muniyappan v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC5 Mar 2026WP/31740/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment Tamil Nadu; maximum age limit 40 years; G.O.Ms.No.18 Labour and Department dated 23.01.2020; legal heirs/near relatives of deceased Government Servant; applicant aged 47 at time of applying held ineligible; Krishnagiri Municipality; Regional Director Municipal Administration (RDMA) Salem; order dated 04.07.2022 in Na.Ka.No.27670/2022/A4 quashing sought; writ of Certiorarified Mandamus under Article 226; writ petition dismissed, no costs; connected W.M.P. No.31378 of 2023 closed; sole bread winner argument rejected on age bar.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was ineligible for compassionate appointment as he was admittedly 47 years old at the time of application, exceeding the maximum age limit of 40 years prescribed by G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 23.01.2020; therefore his request cannot be acceded to. ¶29

G.Muniyappan Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P. No.31740 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 05-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ W.P. No.31740 of 2023 and W.M.P. No.31378 of 2023

¶6

G.Muniyappan S/o.Late Govindan, 47, Rangasamy Street, Paapparapatti, Pudupettai, Krishnagiri- 635 001.

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The State of Tamilnadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.

¶10

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Municipal Administration Department, Ezhilagam Annex, 6th Floor, Chepauk, Chennai- 600 005.

¶11

The Regional Director, Municipal Administration (RDMA) Shree Krishna Rajendra Sundaram Complex, Arisipalayam, Salem- 636 009.

¶12

The Commissioner, Krishnagiri Municipality, Krishnagiri.

¶13

..Respondent(s)

¶14

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus for the records relating to the impugned order of the 3rd Respondent dated 04.07.2022 in Na.Ka.No.27670/

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

W.P. No.31740 of 2023

¶18

2022/A4 and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment the Petitioner for the death of Petitioner Father Late Govindan forthwith.

¶19

For Petitioner(s): Mr.C.Prabakaran For Respondent(s): Mr.G.Ameedius Government Advocate (for R1 to R3) Mr.B.Anand (for R4)

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order of the 3rd respondent dated 04.07.2022, whereby petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was rejected on finding that the petitioner being 47 years old at the time of applying was not eligible for appointment.

¶22

At the outset, it is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that G.O.Ms.No.18, Labour and Department dated 23.01.2020, prescribed the maximum age limit for appointment on compassionate ground as 40 years for legal heirs/ near relatives of the deceased Government Servant at the time of applying. Admittedly, petitioner was 47 years old at the time of applying and presently about 52 years. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for respondents that petitioner would not be eligible for being considered for compassionate appointment in terms of the above G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 23.01.2020.

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

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

¶25

W.P. No.31740 of 2023

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the father was the

¶27

sole bread winner and his request ought to have been considered.

¶28

This Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for

¶29

respondents that the above request cannot be acceded to inasmuch as admittedly petitioner was 47 years old at the time of application and hence ineligible for compassionate appointment in terms of G.O.Ms.No.18 dated 23.01.2020.

¶30