Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 313
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, K.KUMARESH BABU, JJ.
C. Kumari – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Represented by The Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) – Respondent
Writ Petition No.33003 of 2023
Decided On : 12-02-2026
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Karthikei Balan
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Kumaraguru, CGSC
Married daughters can apply for compassionate appointment if they establish dependency on the deceased employee, overriding conventional restrictions on eligibility based solely on marital status.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Principles and Guidelines governing compassionate appointment - In this writ petition, the court examines the rejection of the compassionate appointment application based on marital status and dependency of the applicant upon the deceased. The petitioner, whose husband died while in service, sought employment for her youngest daughter, who had been domestic since 2012 due to discord in her marriage. The tribunal originally rejected the application, claiming the daughter was not dependent due to her marriage status. The court references a prior ruling affirming that a married daughter can be considered if she lives with the deceased, reinforcing that dependency is a critical factor and procedural competency is essential in rejection orders. The court ultimately holds that the tribunal failed to properly evaluate the dependency factors and allowed the writ petition for de novo consideration, ordering a re-evaluation within eight weeks. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 18, 20)
(B) Dependency Criteria for Compassionate Appointment - Dependency of married daughters post-death of an employee is critical; compassionate appointment may be granted if the daughter proves the dependence. The court clarified previous orders that improperly restricted eligibility based on marital status without sufficient inquiry into the facts surrounding dependency. (Paras 8, 15, 19)
ORDER :
K.KUMARESH BABU, J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the tribunal order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the third respondent who rejected the compassionate appointment of the petitioner's daughter to quash the same and for consequential direction to provide employment.
2. Heard Mr.S.Karthikei Balan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Kumaraguru, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the first and second respondents.
3. Mr.S.Karthikei Balan, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's husband who was working as a Technician Grade-I with the respondents, died while in service on 30.09.2013. He would submit that they had four female children out of the wedlock and all were married at the time of death of the employee. However, their last daughter had separated from her matrimonial family and had been living with her parents from the year 2012. In support of her contention that the youngest daughter was living with them, the learned counsel for the petitioner had produced a complaint given against the son-in-law by her daughter in the year 2012 before Arakonam Police Authorities.
4. He would submit that after the death of the employee, an application seeking compassionate appointment for the youngest daughter was made by her along with the consent given by the other daughters. The same was originally rejected on 13.07.2015 by the Divisional Railway Manager, who is not a competent authiority to decide the issue. According to her, the General Manager who is the second respondent herein alone is the competent authority. Hence, without challenging the same, further representations were made to the second respondent seeking compassionate appointment.
5. In the interregnum, the youngest daughter for whom the application was made was also given a decree of dissolution of marriage in the year 2016. He would contend that the youngest daughter has also two minor children and the family is in a penurious circumstances. Repeated efforts were made to the second respondent seeking for compassionate appointment. On the application made by the petitioner, enquiry was also conducted by the Officials of the Department and favourable recommendations was also made recording that the youngest daughter had been desserted by her husband. However, by an order dated 28.01.2021, an order of rejection came to be passed by the second respondent which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal.
6. He would submit that the Tribunal erroneously holding that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier order of rejection cannot be allowed to challenge the order of the year 2021 apart from holding that there was failure to explain the penurious condition of the family in upholding the order of rejection made by the second respondent. He would submit that the earlier order of rejection made in the year 2015 was not made by the competent authority and therefore, the same need not be challenged as it is non-est.
7. He would further submit that the certificate given by the Tahsildar indicating the penurious circumstances of the family had also been placed on record before the Tribunal apart from the Report of the Officers of the Railway who had conducted the enquiry on the application and filed a Report. Hence, he would submit that the order of Tribunal without considering the facts of the case in its proper perspective requires interference by this Court and seeks this Court to set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as the second respondent in the year 2021 and direct the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in the proper prospective. He had also relied upon the following judgments in an identical circumstances.
a) W.P.No.9269 of 2014 dated 03.09.2014 in the case of Union of India and 3 Ors., Vs The Registrar and Anr.
b) 2016 SCC Online Mad 28999 in the case of R.Pitchaiammal and Anr. Vs The General Manager and 3 Ors. ,
c) 2023 SCC Online Mad 58
