Madras High Court
WP/31624/2022 of M.Mekala Vs The Secretary on 17 September 2026
WP No. 31624 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
WP No. 31624 of 2022
CNR:{HCMA011822392022}
M.Mekala
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Secretary
Revenue Department, Fort st. George,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector
Salem, Salem District.
3. The Sub Collector
Mettur Dam-1, Salem District.
4. The Tahsildar
Taluk Officer, Mettur,
Taluk, Salem District.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to proceeding in Pa.Mu. 9886 /2019 /A4 dated 01/02/2021 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in “D” category post in 4th respondent’s office under compassionate ground.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Gokulakannan
for Mr.M.Elango
For Respondent(s):
Mr.K.K.Ramm Siddhartha,
Additional Government Pleader
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
2026:MHC:3969
WP No. 31624 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.02.2021, whereby the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner had not satisfied the guidelines issued by the Government.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner’s father was appointed as a Night Watchman on 01.03.1988 in the fourth respondent-Office and, subsequently, his service was regularized. While so, he died on 15.04.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment on 09.04.2019. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was dependent upon her father and that she has two unmarried daughters. For meeting the family and educational expenses, her father was supporting the family and was paying a sum of Rs.10,000/- every month towards the family expenses. He would further submit that, due to the sudden demise of her father, the petitioner is now facing difficulties in maintaining her livelihood. Hence, he prayed to interfere with the impugned order.
3. Per contra, the said contention was stoutly opposed by the learned Government Advocate appearing for the first to third respondents and would
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
2026:MHC:3969 WP No. 31624 of 2022
contend that the request of the petitioner was considered in accordance with the Rules and, since the petitioner’s request did not come within the existing guidelines, the same was rejected. He would also submit that, at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father, her mother was a Government employee and her brother was also working as a Driver in the TNSTC. Therefore, the petitioner’s family was not in penurious or indigent circumstances. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present Writ Petition.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
5. It is well-settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to public employment. Therefore, it is the duty of the Government to strictly follow the guidelines prevailing at the time of the death of the employee. Apart from that, the petitioner cannot seek compassionate appointment as a matter of right, and compassionate appointment is intended only to assist the family of the deceased employee, who has lost its breadwinner, to tide over the immediate financial crisis and come out of the penurious and indigent circumstances.
6. In the case in hand, as rightly contended by the learned Additinal Government Pleader, the petitioner’s mother was a Government employee and
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
2026:MHC:3969 WP No. 31624 of 2022
her brother was also working as a Driver in the TNSTC. Therefore, though the petitioner may contend that she is presently facing penurious and indigent circumstances, the fact remains that, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner’s mother was a Government employee. The said fact, by itself, constituted a valid ground for rejecting the application in accordance with the guidelines prevailing at the relevant point of time. It is well-settled principle of law that, while exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review, this Court can have only a mild relook into the impugned order and cannot interfere with the same unless the order is found to be perverse or has been passed by an incompetent authority.
7. In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court does not find any perversity in the impugned order. Further, no objection has been raised by the petitioner with regard to the competency of the District Collector in rejecting the application. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
8. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. 17-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/ KV
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
2026:MHC:3969 WP No. 31624 of 2022
To
1. The Secretary Revenue Department, Fort st. George, Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector Salem, Salem District.
3. The Sub Collector Mettur Dam-1, Salem District.
4. The Tahsildar Taluk Officer, Mettur, Taluk, Salem District.
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )
2026:MHC:3969 WP No. 31624 of 2022
C.KUMARAPPAN J. KV WP No. 31624 of 2022 17-09-2026
( Uploaded on: 28/09/2026 02:57:24 pm )