A.Shanmugapriya Vs State of Tamil Nadu

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 06.04.2026

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

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

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.8956 of 2026

A.Shanmugapriya

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by the Secretary to Government, Home (Courts) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶10

2.The Additional Registrar General, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, High Court Buildings, Madurai.

¶11

3.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶12

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in A1/177/2025 dated 24.11.2025 on the file of the third respondent and quash the same as illegal and directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner in the third respondent office (Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram) based on the compassionate grounds.

¶13

1/8

¶14

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

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ramanathan For R1 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan Special Government Pleader For R2 & R3 : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha, Standing Counsel.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)

¶18

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order in A1/177/2025 dated 24.11.2025 on the file of the third respondent and consequential direction to respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner in the third respondent office (Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram) based on the compassionate grounds.

¶19

2.It is the case of the writ petitioner that she belongs to scheduled caste community. Her sister, namely, Kayalvizhi, worked as a typist in the office of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and she died during her service, on 17.08.2023. The deceased not get married at the time of her death. The petitioner's mother aged about 48 years. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking compassionate appointment before the third respondent, on

¶20

2/8

¶21

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

¶22

21.03.2025. The third respondent rejected the said representation on the ground that the petitioner's husband was working as Loan Officer in Cholamandalam Finance. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the said rejection order passed by the third respondent.

¶23

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the rejection order passed by the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner's husband was working is un-sustainable in law and the order impugned came to be passed, after a lapse of two years. If the third respondent considered the representation of the petitioner earlier, she would not have suffered. The petitioner and her old aged mother have no other source for their livelihood. Therefore, the rejection order passed by the third respondent is un-sustainable in law.

¶24

4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 would submit that after due enquiry on the application submitted by petitioner, an enquiry report was submitted and it was found that there are contradiction on the eligibility of the applicant for the compassionate ground appointment, ie., mother of the deceased employee owns land and

¶25

3/8

¶26

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

¶27

is not dependent on the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner owns agricultural land and also employed in a Bank and the petitioner does not meet out the eligibility criteria for the appointment on compassionate ground. The third respondent rightly rejected the application.

¶28

5.We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

¶29

6.It is seen from the records that the sister of the writ petitioner, namely, Kayalvizhi, was worked as Typist in the third respondent Office. During her service, she died on 17.08.2023. At that time deceased not get married and her mother also aged about 48 years. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted the application for appointment on compassionate appointment, on 22.11.2023 before the third respondent. The learned Principal District Judge called for an enquiry report from the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram and called for salary certificate of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner has also submitted salary certificate of her husband for a period from 11.01.2025 to March 2025. In the enquiry, it was found that the husband of the petitioner has resigned his job on 22.03.2025. However, he is owning agricultural lands and he is doing cultivation. It is also found that the

¶30

4/8

¶31

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

¶32

mother of the deceased employee also owns land and she is not dependent on the petitioner.

¶33

7.As per Rule 2(1)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services

¶34

(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, “Family” under which Rule 2(1)(f)(ii) states that in the case of a deceased unmarried Government servant, his father, mother, brother or sister. Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules deals with the eligibility for appointment of the family members on compassionate ground. Rule 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules deals with eligibility of the family of a deceased or medically invalidated Government servant, for appointment on compassionate grounds, are subject to the following conditions,

¶35

(a) The family must be in indigent circumstance.

¶36

(b) No member of the family shall be in regular employment in

¶37

Government or any private enterprise: Provided that where a member of the family is in regular employment and is living separately without providing any monetary assistance to the family before the death or retirement on medical invalidation of the Government servant, shall not

¶38

5/8

¶39

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

¶40

make the family ineligible

¶41

8.In the instant case on hand, after receipt of application from the petitioner, the appointing authority has called for enquiry report from the Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram and also called for salary certificate of the petitioner's husband. Upon enquiry on the application, the appointing authority found that the petitioner was not dependent on the deceased and she is married to one Mr.Sangupalani, who is a degree holder in B.E. He was also formerly worked as Insurance Agent in City Union Bank and now working as Loan Officer in Cholamandalam Finance and he has also received Rs.24,450/- salary per month from 11.01.2025 to 22.03.2025, apart from the agricultural income.

¶42

9.It is also found that as per enquiry report, the petitioner is not in indigent circumstances so as to be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds and the appointing authority found that the petitioner does not fulfill the requirements of the appointment and passed the rejection order. The appointing authority conducted a detailed enquiry and come to a conclusion that the petitioner does not comes

¶43

6/8

¶44

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

¶45

under the eligibility criteria as per norms prescribed under Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules for appointment on compassionate ground and passed the impugned order. There is no reason warrants to interfere with the same. There is no merits in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

10.In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be

¶47

no order as to costs.

¶48

[N.S.K., J.] & [M.J.R., J.] 06.04.2026

¶49

Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes GNS

¶50

To

¶51

1.The Secretary to Government, Home (Courts) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.