Compassionate appointment is not a statutory right, and claims made after an inordinate delay beyond the prescribed time limit are liable to be rejected.

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records in proceedings Na.Ka.No.360/A/2017 issued by the 3rd respondent dated 06.12.2017 and quash the same as impugned and consequently, directing the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground by considering the application of the petitioner dated 05.09.2017 within a reasonable time.

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 06.12.2017 passed by the third respondent. By the said order, the petitioner’s application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds came to be rejected.

2. The petitioner’s father, namely Mr. N. Ramasamy, while working as Officer Manager in the Government Vocational Training Institute, Namakkal, died in harness on 22.12.2007. The deceased Ramasamy left behind his wife, the petitioner, and another daughter as his legal heirs. Subsequently, the mother and the other daughter of the deceased Ramasamy also passed away. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 10.05.2017 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

4. The petitioner seeks compassionate appointment on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 21.04.2017. As per the said Government Order, a married daughter is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment within three years from the date of death of the Government servant. In the instant case, the petitioner’s father died on 22.12.2007, whereas the application seeking compassionate appointment was submitted only on 10.05.2017, after an inordinate delay. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds under G.O.Ms.No.78, dated 21.04.2017.

5. In the absence of any statutory right to claim compassionate appointment, the belated claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the third respondent. Hence, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the third respondent.

6. Accordingly, the captioned writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

04.02.2026

Index : Yes / No

Neutral Citation : Yes / No

Speaking / Non-speaking

mk