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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 9476

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. Asha, J
S.Meganadhan – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner – Respondent
W.P.No. 3994 of 2023 | W.M.P.No. 4049 of 2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Surya Prakash
For the Respondents: S. Gopinathan

The case examines the legality of the rejection of a request for appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of a government employee in harness.

Headnote:A writ petition was filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 20.10.2022. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of their father, who was employed as a Motor Mechanic in the respondent department and passed away in harness on 07.08.2017. The primary issue is whether the rejection of the request for compassionate appointment was illegal, improper, or unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice. Result not provided in the available text.

Table of Content
1. request for compassionate appointment following the death of a parent in government service. (Para 1 , 2)

Prayer:

Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relevant to the order E.Po.Thu.Tha.Sa.Va.Pa No. A10/137/2022 dated 20.10.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, improper, unreasonable, against the rule of law, natural justice and probabilities of the case and thereby direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner in the respondents department in any one of the post according to his educational qualification under the Compassionate Ground without any delay.

For Petitioner : Mr. R.Surya Prakash

For Respondents : Mr. S.Gopinathan

Standing Counsel

O R D E R

Challenging the rejection of request for compassionate appointment, the petitioner is before this Court.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that his father, late G.Srinivasan was an employee in the respondent department as a Motor Mechanic. He had passed away in harness on 07.08.2017. The petitioner’s mother Valli had predeceased her husband on 04.05.2010. The petitioner, his

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