Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Madras Division Bench of Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan upheld the rejection of a claim for compassionate appointment by the son of a deceased government employee while directing that the widow be offered immediate appointment. The Court held that the inordinate delay of 34 months by the department in processing the original application by the widow could not be used to seek fresh documentation, and concluded that the widow, being qualified, must be appointed within four weeks.

The case concerned a request for compassionate appointment following the death of a Record Clerk in the National Highways Department on 1 October 2016. At the time of his death, the only eligible family member was his widow, Tmt. Amudha. She applied for compassionate appointment on 5 January 2018. However, the application remained unattended for nearly three years.

Also Read: Preliminary Enquiry Not Mandatory’: Supreme Court Restores FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case, Says ‘Detailed Source Report Before SP Sufficient for Registration

On 16 October 2020, the Divisional Engineer, National Highways Department, Villupuram, issued a letter requesting the following documents from the widow:

1. A new income certificate;

2. Explanation on utilisation of terminal benefits received upon the employee’s death;

3. Genuineness certificate of educational qualifications; and

4. Copy of the family card attested by the Taluk Supply Officer.

In response, the widow expressed her intention to nominate her son—the appellant—for appointment instead. At that time, the son had completed the 11th standard.

Following his attainment of majority, the appellant submitted a fresh application on 19 November 2022, which was rejected on the ground that it was made more than three years after the date of death of the government servant and that he had not attained the age of 18 at the time of the original application.

The appellant made a subsequent representation on 25 January 2023, which was also rejected by an order dated 16 March 2023. Challenging the same, the appellant approached the High Court through a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. The learned Single Judge upheld the rejection of the son’s application while directing that the mother’s original application be reconsidered for appointment.

The appellant then filed a writ appeal challenging the portion of the order that denied him compassionate appointment.

In support of the appeal, the appellant’s counsel contended that he was better suited than his mother to be appointed and that the mother had already expressed her intention to nominate him. The counsel relied on G.O.(Ms).No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department, dated 8 March 2023, which empowers the government to relax any rules under compassionate appointment schemes where hardship would result from their application.

The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, argued that compassionate appointment is not a right and must be granted strictly in accordance with the governing scheme. They cited the Full Bench decision of the High Court in Nandini Devi v. Secretary to Government (W.P. (MD) No.7016 of 2011), which upheld the three-year limitation period for making such applications.

The records indicated that the mother had provided all the required documents at the time of her application, and that the request for re-validation came only after a 34-month delay on the part of the department.

The Division Bench considered whether the delay on the part of the authorities in processing the widow’s application justified the denial of her son's claim and examined the applicability of the scheme governing compassionate appointments.

Referring to the Full Bench decision in Nandini Devi, the Court stated:

“Appointment on compassionate basis has to be strictly followed in accordance with the relevant G.O.’s or the scheme that has been framed by the employer. Any deviation from the scheme is not permissible.”

While acknowledging that the government retains discretionary power to relax certain conditions in exceptional cases, the Court observed:

“In the case on hand, we find that the mother had already applied seeking compassionate appointment… By keeping the matter pending for 34 months, the respondents are not justified in seeking re-validated certificates.”

The Court also took judicial notice of systemic delays and associated consequences in requiring repeated certification. It referred to a prior judgment in P. Pappu v. The Sub Registrar, Rasipuram SRO (W.A. No.1160 of 2024), and noted:

“By requiring the mother to get fresh certificates, the Divisional Engineer has only paved way for the officers in-charge of issuing such certificates to get illegal gratification once over again.”

Addressing the appellant’s claim that he was better suited than his mother and should be considered as her nominee, the Court recorded:

“We are unable to fault the learned Single Judge for having upheld the rejection of the appellant’s application… At the same time, we cannot be mute spectators to the inaction on the part of the respondents for nearly 34 months.”

The Bench found no justification for the delay and held that the scheme’s provisions must prevail over individual preferences, especially when the nominee was not of majority age at the time of death and application.

Also Read: “Denial of Appointment for Pending Case Without Moral Turpitude Is Arbitrary”: Rajasthan HC Backs Widow RAS Aspirant, Says “Mere FIR Doesn’t Tarnish Character”

The Court issued the following binding directions:

“We therefore direct the respondents to immediately offer compassionate appointment to Tmt. Amudha commensurate with her qualification. The appointment order is to be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

“Writ Appeal is disposed of on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. M. Vijayakumar, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. K. H. Ravikumar, Government Advocate

Case Title: Gowdham v. The Director General, National Highways Department & Others

Case Number: W.A. No. 355 of 2025

Bench: Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan

[Read/Download order]