WP/29198/2023 of N.VIJAYAN Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 17 September 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings in O.Mu.No.11692/2022/A3, dated 14.08.2023, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider the petitioner for appointment to any suitable post on compassionate grounds.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the petitioner’s father, who was the deceased employee, was drawing a special time scale of pay. He would further submit that the fact that the deceased employee was in the special time scale of pay cannot be a valid ground for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in V. Balamurugan v. District Collector, reported in 2024- 2 Writ L.R. 509. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the impugned order.

3. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate would strongly oppose the aforesaid contention and submit that, irrespective of the reason assigned in the impugned order, the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment, as there has been an inordinate delay between the date of death of the employee

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 05:16:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4070 WP No. 29198 of 2023

and the submission of the application. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

5. On perusal of the impugned rejection order, it is seen that the same does not refer to the delay in submitting the application. Rather, the petitioner’s claim was rejected solely on the ground that his father was drawing a special time scale of pay. In this regard, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court in V. Balamurugan’s case (cited supra), which read as follows:- “8. In the case on hand, we find that the father of the appellant was brought under special time scale of pay with effect from 22.08.2013 pursuant to G.O.(Ms)No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 07.05.2013. The operative portion of G.O.(Ms)No.39, dated 07.05.2013, reads as follows: 3,

ஊரக வளர்ச்சி மற்றும் ஊராட்சி ஆணை யரின்

கருத்துருவினை அரசு கவனமுடன் ஆய்வு செய்தது, அதன்படி,

மேலே ஒன்றாவதாகப் படிக்கப்பட்ட

அரசாணை யில் வெ ளியிடப்பட்ட நிபந்தனை களுக்கு உட்பட்டு, 15.09.2010-

ம்நாளன்றுமூன்றுஆண்டுகள்பணி

முடித்த பிற்சேர்க்கையில் காணப்படும் துப்புரவுப்

பணியாளர்கள் கிராம ஊராட்சியில் பணிபுரியும்

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 05:16:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4070 WP No. 29198 of 2023

நபர்கள்,

ஊராட்சி ஒன்றியங்களில் பணிபுரியும்

நபர்கள்,

அரசுஅலுவலகங்களில்பணிபுரியும்18 நபர்கள்

ஆகியோ ர்களை முறையான பணியிடத்திற்கு

கொ ண்டுவரும்பொ ருட்டு,

அவ்வகை பணியாளர்களின் பணியிடங்களை ,

சிறப்பு காலமுறை ஊதியம் பெறும்

பணியிடங்களாகஒப்பளிக்கச்செய்யலாம்எனக்கருதி,

அரசுஅவ்வாறே ஆணை யிடுகிறது." (Emphasis supplied)

9. A reading of the above would show that the persons, who are working as Sweepers in the Panchayats were placed under a special time scale of pay with the intention of regularizing their services and integrating them into the regular service. If that is the Government's intention, then, Sweepers granted a special time scale of pay should be considered as regular employees for all practical purposes. Therefore, the ground on which the appellant's claim was rejected by the authority and confirmed by the Writ Court is imaginary, stemming from a misinterpretation of G.O. (Ms)No.39, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj (E5) Department, dated 07.05.2013.

10. No doubt, compassionate appointment cannot be considered a bounty. At the same time, the benefit should be extended to the deserving heirs of individuals, who had served the Government. As we had already pointed out, the father of the appellant served the Government as a Sweeper for 26 long years without any break. Denying the benefit to such a person would, in our opinion, project the Government as well as this Court in a bad light.”

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 05:16:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4070 WP No. 29198 of 2023

6. On perusal of the aforesaid ratio, it is amply clear that the mere fact that the deceased employee was drawing a special time scale of pay would not disentitle his legal heirs from seeking compassionate appointment. The Division Bench has also held that denying the benefit of compassionate appointment by relying upon the aforesaid ground cannot be countenanced.

7. In view of the above circumstances, and considering that the impugned order has been passed on an unsustainable ground, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 14.08.2023. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration on its own merits and in accordance with law. The respondents shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. 17-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes KV

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 05:16:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4070 WP No. 29198 of 2023

To

1. The District Collector Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.

2. The Tahsildar Thiruvarur District, Thiruvarur.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 05:16:38 pm )

2026:MHC:4070 WP No. 29198 of 2023

C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 29198 of 2023 17-09-2026

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 05:16:38 pm )