Madras High Court
WA/3042/2024 of K.Arunachalam Vs The Principal Secretary to Government on 27 October 2026
W.A.No.3042 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
W.A.No.3042 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011885022024}
K.Arunachalam,
S/o.Krishnasamy,
No.28/ 25, Devi Karumari Amman Nagar,
4th Street, Korukupettai,
Chennai- 600 021. … Appellant
Vs.
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Office of the Collectorate,
Chennai- 600 001.
3.The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai- 600 006.
4.The Director of Medical Education,
Kilpauk,
Chennai- 600 010.
5.The Dean,
Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai- 600 003. … Respondents
W.A.No.3042 of 2024
P rayer:
Writ Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of Letter Patent, to allow the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 18.03.2024 made in W.P.No.5537 of
2022.
For Appellant:
Mr.R.Thirugnanam
For Respondents:
Mr.S.Illamvaludhi,
Special Government Pleader, for
R1 to R5
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.
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by G.Jayachandran J.) Intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged the proceedings issued by the First Respondent rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment in view of death of the petitioner's wife during the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. The petitioner's wife, who was working as Staff Nurse at the Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai, died while in service during the COVID-19 pandemic. The then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, on the floor of the Legislative Assembly under Rule 110 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules, made an announcement offering adequate compensation and employment to the family members of Government staffs who died while serving the public during the Covid-19 virus.
W.A.No.3042 of 2024
3. The case of the petitioner is that his wife died leaving behind him and two daughters. The petitioner requested that his younger daughter, a law graduate must be provided with employment on compassionate grounds. However, the said request was denied by the First Respondent.
4. Challenging the same, the writ petition is filed. The learned Single Judge, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present intra-court appeal has been filed.
5. At the outside, we find that the writ petitioner/appellant has no locus to file this petition seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of his adult daughter, who is a law graduate and an enrolled Advocate in the Bar Council. Furthermore, from the appellant’s own affidavit, we find that her husband is also a practising Advocate. It is neither his case that deceased public servant family suffers financial distress.
6. The learned Single Judge, though entertained the writ petition had rightly dismissed it after recording the reasons and the status of the family. We find that the writ petition filed as such is not only frivolous, but also mischievous. A family which is affluent otherwise and well-educated cannot
W.A.No.3042 of 2024 merely cite the sudden death of the public servant and the announcement made by the Chief Minister on the floor of the House to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. The Compassionate Appointment Rules does not provide appointment as a matter of right, but only for genuine family which is under financial distress due to the sudden demise of the Government servant while in service.
7. In the present case, the writ appeal is filed by the father (appellant), who himself a pensioner and officer retired from AAI. His first daughter is an Engineer, married and employed in the TWAD Board (Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board). The second daughter, for whom the appellant seeks employment, is a B.A., B.L., graduate enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. By no stretch of imagination can have the benefit of compassionate appointment meant for family in distress.
8. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), payable by the appellant to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Chennai, within a period of four weeks from today. (Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.) & (E.MANOHARAN J.) 27-10-2026
W.A.No.3042 of 2024 Index :Yes/No. Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation :Yes/No. bsm To,
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Health and Family Welfare Department, Fort St. George, Chennai- 600 009.
2. The District Collector, Office of the Collectorate, Chennai- 600 001.
3. The Director of Medical and Rural Health Services, Teynampet, Chennai- 600 006.
4. The Director of Medical Education, Kilpauk, Chennai- 600 010.
5. The Dean, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Poonamalle High Road, Chennai- 600 003.
6. The Director, Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Madras.
W.A.No.3042 of 2024 Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. bsm W.A.No.3042 of 2024 27-10-2026