Madras High Court
WA/2811/2023 of THE CHAIRMAN Vs A.SUMATHI on 2 September 2026
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
AND
CMP NO.23465 OF 2023
The Chairman
Chennai Port Authority
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
…
Appellant
Vs.
A.Sumathi
W/o. Late Ananthanarayanan
No.24, Krishnamurthy Street,
Erukkencherry,
Chennai – 600 118.
…
Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, praying to set aside the order dated 08.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.32528
of 2014.
For Appellant
:
Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
For Respondent :
Mr.K.Raja
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
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.
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) The present intra-court appeal has been instituted by the Chennai Port Authority challenging the writ order dated 08.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.32528 of 2014. It is the second round of litigation between the parties.
2. The facts in brief are that the husband of the respondent – A.Sumathi was employed in Chennai Port Trust as Assistant Technician and died in harness on 05.01.2001, while in service. The respondent registered her name for appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the respondent was not considered for appointment, she filed a writ petition in W.P.No.18331 of 2008. The said writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.08.2009 directing the appellant herein to offer compassionate appointment to the respondent, either in Class III or in Class IV Service, as per the seniority of the respondent for compassionate appointment. Challenging the writ order, Chennai Port Trust filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.2453 of 2011 and a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the same on 14.02.2012. Against the said order, the
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
Chennai Port Trust preferred SLP (C) No.29004/2012 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the same on 31.03.2014. Even before dismissal of the SLP, the respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds on 25.06.2013. She is presently working in the Chennai Port Trust.
3. After completion of the first round of litigation, as stated above, the respondent filed a fresh writ petition in W.P.No.32528 of 2014 claiming retrospective appointment on compassionate grounds as given in the case of one Smt.S.Jayachitra. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the writ court, which resulted in filing of the present writ appeal by the Chennai Port Authority.
4. Perusal of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Jayachitra’s case in SLA (Civil) No.34085 of 2013 would reveal that a specific direction was issued by the Apex Court to appoint Smt.S.Jayachitra relating back to the date on which other persons were appointed on compassionate grounds in 2005. The SLP was dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Her pay was also directed to be fixed accordingly.
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
5. However, in the case of the respondent herein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, confirming the orders passed by the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of this Court. A Division Bench of this Court passed an order directing the appellant herein to offer compassionate appointment to the respondent herein as per the seniority in a suitable post. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP confirming the order passed by the Division Bench and the said order has already been implemented by the appellant by appointing the respondent herein on compassionate grounds on 25.06.2013. Any further benefit by way of another round of litigation cannot be granted since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent and confirmed the order passed by this Court.
6. In view of the fact that the appellant has implemented the order passed by the Division Bench, as confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent cannot claim any further relief or other benefits by citing the other employee, who was appointed on compassionate grounds. Compassionate appointment is a concession and in the present case, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds. Thus, granting retrospective appointment or retrospective fixation of pay in the present case would set a wrong precedent.
7. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no further benefits needs to be conferred on the respondent. Consequently, the impugned writ order dated 08.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.32528 of 2014 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
[S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]
02.09.2026 Index : Yes Speaking Order : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes / No TK To The Chairman Chennai Port Authority Rajaji Salai,
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J. TK
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023 02.09.2026