Dismissed¶31

P.Subash v. the General Manager

Mandamus – Compassionate appointment

Madras HC9 Mar 2026WP/9045/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation; death of employee-Driver in service; termination from service; less than 10 years of qualifying service; terminal benefits paid to mother; representation dated 02.02.2026; W.P.No.20969 of 2023; Cont.P.No.2010 of 2024; writ petition dismissed; Madras High Court; P.T. Asha J.; WP No. 9045 of 2026.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner cannot seek compassionate appointment in the place of a person who had been terminated from service and who had not even put in 10 years of service. ¶27

P.Subash Vs the General Manager — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 9045 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA WP No. 9045 of 2026

¶5

P.Subash

¶6

S/o. P.Palaniswami, No. 29, 5th street, Annai Nagar, Mettur Dam, Salem district 636 402

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

The General Manager Tamil Nadu state Transport corporation Ltd., 12 Ramakrishna Road, Hasthampatti, Salem 636 007

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 02.02.2026 seeking compassionate appointment and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame as fixed by this court.

¶12

For Petitioner(s):

¶13

Mr. M.Venkadesh Kumar

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Raja Standing Counsel

¶15

__________ Page1 of 6

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 9045 of 2026

¶18

Order

¶19

The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondent to consider his representation dated 02.02.2026 for compassionate appointment.

¶20

It is the case of the petitioner that her father, Palaniswami was employed as Driver in the respondent-Corporation on 13.12.2011. He died on 30.01.2019 while in service. Thereafter, the petitioner’s mother submitted a representation dated 24.02.2023 to the respondents seeking gratuity arrears and pension benefits. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondent, the petitioner’s mother had filed W.P.No.20969 of 2023 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 therein to consider her representation. This Court, by order dated 17.07.2023, directed the respondents 3 and 4 to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Since the said order was not complied with, Cont.P.No.2010 of 2024 was filed wherein this Court directed the respondents to process the application. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 02.02.2026 seeking compassionate appointment. However, the respondents have

¶21

Page2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 9045 of 2026

¶24

neither considered nor passed any orders on the said representation till date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶25

A perusal of the affidavit and the documents filed would indicate that the petitioner’s father had joined the respondent-Corporation on 31.12.2011 and passed away on 30.01.2019 and had therefore not put in

¶26

more than 10 years of service. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner’s father had been terminated from service and on humanitarian grounds, the terminal benefits were given to his mother after she had moved this Court in W.P.No.20969 of 2022. That apart, the petitioner has sought for compassionate appointment only on 02.02.2026 that too after receiving the terminal benefits.

¶27

Therefore, in the light of the above, the petitioner cannot seek compassionate appointment in the place of a person who had been terminated from service and who had not even put in 10 years of service. That being case, no useful purpose would be served in directing the respondents to consider his representation.

¶28

__________ Page3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

WP No. 9045 of 2026

¶31