WP/26207/2024 of N.YESUDASS Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 18 September 2026

ORDER

The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.06.2024, on the file of the 3rd respondent in his proceedings vide No.Ma.Aa.14.Na.Ka.No.Aa13/7515/2024, whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of overage. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that, though the petitioner was aged 40 years, 7 months and 1 day as on the date of submission of the application for compassionate appointment, the same cannot be construed to mean that he was overaged. Such age is nothing but the running age of the petitioner, and his age ought to be construed as 40 years. In support of her contention, she has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in The Branch Manager, Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Varsha S.L. and others, dated 20.06.2019. Therefore, she would contend that the rejection of the application is contrary to law and, hence, prayed for interference with the impugned order.

3. The said contention is vehemently opposed by the learned Additional Government Pleader. According to his submission, as per G.O. (Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.01.2020, the maximum age limit for the son or daughter of a deceased Government servant should be 40 years at the time of applying for appointment on compassionate grounds. In the case on hand, admittedly, on the date of submission of the application, the petitioner was overaged. Therefore, the rejection order does not warrant interference. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

4. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

5. While considering the factual aspect, according to the respondent, the date of submission of the application is 15.11.2021, whereas, according to the petitioner, the date of application is 01.09.2021. However, considering his date of birth, viz., 14.04.1981, on the date of submission of the application, whether the date relied upon by the petitioner or the date relied upon by the respondent is taken into consideration, the petitioner was more than 40 years of age. According to the respondent, the petitioner was aged 40 years, 7 months and 1 day, whereas, according to the petitioner, he was aged 40 years and 4 months. However, the fact remains that he had completed 40 years of age.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in The Branch Manager, Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited (referred herein supra), by referring to paragraph No.47 thereof, which arose out of a motor accident award, and taking reference to the discussion of the Hon'ble Division Bench with regard to fixing the multiplier, would contend that 40 years, 7 months and 1 day must be construed as the running age of 40 years. If that were to be the case, the application would be maintainable. However, this Court is not in a position to agree with the above submission. Even according to the said judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held that when a person has completed 40 years but not 41 years, it may be stated that his completed age is 40 years and his running age is 41 years.

7. However, the above proposition is not strictly applicable to the present set of facts, where the guideline is specific that the maximum age should be 40 years. The reference to 40 years in the said guideline indicates the completed age, and, on the date of submission of the application, according to the Government guidelines, the petitioner had completed 40 years of age.

8. It is a well-settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to public employment and to Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. Therefore, though it is a beneficial provision, when it operates as an exception to the constitutional principles, it must be strictly acted upon only in accordance with the guidelines issued by the respective Department. In the present case, as per G.O. (Ms) No.18, Labour and Employment Department, dated 23.01.2020, the maximum age prescribed at the time of applying is 40 years. The reference to 40 years in the said guideline indicates the completed age, which position is also delineated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. No costs. 18-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKP

C.KUMARAPPAN J. RKP To

1. The Additional Chief Secretary, The State Of Tamil Nadu Government, Municipal Administration And Water Supply Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-09.

2. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai-03.

3. The Zonal Officer Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone-14, No.6/64, Puzhuthivakkam Main Road, Puzhuthivakkam, Chennai- 91. WP No. 26207 of 2024 AND WMP NO. 28635 OF 2024 18-09-2026