SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 4586

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
Princy Udhaya - Petitioner 
Versus
The Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Electricity Department and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD) No.2102 of 2025
Decided On : 06-06-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Meenakshi Sundaram.
For the Respondents: Mr. S.R.A. Ramachandran, AGP, Mr. S. Arivalagan, Standing Counsel.

Minors can apply for compassionate appointment upon reaching majority; applications must be evaluated on individual circumstances rather than strict adherence to time limits.

Headnote:(A) TANGEDCO Pro. No.11 (Adm.Br) dated 11.06.2020 - Appointment on compassionate grounds - A minor can seek compassionate appointment after attaining majority, relevant judgments cited include Rajesh Nath vs. State of Assam and R.Sridevi vs. Secretary to Government - The petitioner’s application was rejected due to non-fulfillment of age and time limitations. (Paras 3, 6, 7)

(B) Legal Principles - Compassionate appointment aims to assist families in distress due to the loss of breadwinners; applications should be considered on individual merits irrespective of timing when minors apply upon reaching majority. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after her father, an employee, died on 15.03.2020. Despite submitting her application on 17.07.2023, it was rejected on grounds of failing to meet age and time requirements.

Findings of Court:
The application for compassionate appointment must be reconsidered based on socio-economic status and circumstances of the deceased's family.

Issues: The primary issues revolved around the eligibility of applicants who were minors at the time of a parent's death and whether their claims could be considered after reaching legal age.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted established legal precedence that minors can seek compassionate appointments upon attaining majority, emphasizing the necessity of evaluating applications based on individual merits rather than rigid adherence to deadlines.

Result: Impugned orders set aside; case remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. challenge to rejection of compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 3)
2. arguments on eligibility criteria for application. - What is the basis for the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment? (Para 2 , 4)
3. court's analysis on entitlement to compassionate appointment. - What considerations did the court take into account? (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
4. final directive to reconsider application. - What is the result of the court's decision? (Para 8)

ORDER :

(VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the orders dated 28.07.2023, 29.08.2023 and 31.08.2023, whereby the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader & learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 & 3 respectively.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground, as her father, who was employed as a Junior Engineer-II Grade/Elecl. in the third respondent circle, died in harness on 15.03.2020 due to ill- health. He further contended that the petitioner taking into account the financial crisis of the family, made an application for compassionate appointment on 17.07.2023 on attaining majority on 16.07.2023 as her brother is a minor and on receiving the consent of 'no objection' from her mother. Inspite of the same, the third respondent without considering the financial crisis on the loss of the breadwinner of the family, allegedly rejected her application on the ground that it was not submitted within the stipulated period of three years from the date of her father's demise and the petitioner has not attained the age of 18 years as the prescribed time limit of submission of the application was on 14.03.2023. Aggrieved by the orders of rejection, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not submitted the application for compassionate appointment within the stipulated period of three years from the date of her father's demise and she has also not attained the age of 18 years at the date of submission of the said application. He further submitted that as per the orders issued under the Scheme in (Per) TANGEDCO Pro. No.11 (Adm.Br) dated 11.06.2020, a person will be eligible for appointment on compassionate ground only at the time of application, the candidate should have completed 18 years age and the application should be made within the period of three years from the date of death of the employee. Moreover, in the present case on hand, the petitioner has not fulfilled any of the conditions, with reference to completion of minimum age as on the date of submission of application.

5. This Court had considered the submissions made by the respective counsels on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

6. On a bare reading of the case reveals that the petitioner has submitted her application for compassionate ground on attaining majority on 17.07.2023 which has been rejected by the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief of appointment on compassionate ground since the petitioner has not submitted the application within the prescribed period of limitation and was also not attained majority on the date of submission of the application as per the orders issued under the Scheme in (Per) TANGEDCO Pro.No.11 (Adm.Br) dated 11.06.2020. At this stage, it is relevant for this Court to cite the decisions supporting that a minor can seek compassionate appointment after attaining majority and the following judgments are as follows:

(i) Rajesh Nath Vs. The State of Assam and 8 others in WP(C)/3290/2020.The relevant portion of the or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top