Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1773
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, JJ.
The Union of India - Appellant
Vs.
S.Balaji - Respondent
W.P.No.12788 of 2025
Decided On : 12-03-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Karthikeyan
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Malaichamy
Compassionate appointments should reflect a fair consideration of individual circumstances rather than solely depend on merit point systems.
Headnote:The judgment involves a Writ Petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which allowed a request for compassionate appointment made by the respondent after considering various facts surrounding the case. The court noted statutory provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and emphasized that compassionate appointments are not a matter of right but must consider the factual circumstances and the purpose behind such allowances. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings that the rejection by the Department was unjustified given previous approvals for compassionate appointment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge tribunal's granting of compassionate appointment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. case revolves around the rejection of a compassionate appointment application. (Para 4 , 5 , 11) |
| 3. previous approvals for compassionate appointment considered. (Para 6 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. tribunal's decision points to inconsistencies in application of merit system. (Para 7 , 10 , 21) |
| 5. court affirms tribunal's decision of granting compassionate appointment. (Para 22 , 23) |
JUDGMENT :
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 12.07.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.149 of 2021, by which the Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the Department rejecting the respondent’s claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the respondent is the son of a deceased employee who was working in the Department of Posts. The respondent’s father died while in service on 01.07.1993, leaving behind the family. Following the death of the employee, the family sought appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the scheme framed by the Government for providing such appointment to the dependants of employees who die in harness.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the request made by the respondent was considered by the Department in accordance with the scheme governing compassionate appointments. According to the petitioners, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and such appointments are governed strictly by the scheme in force. The petitioners would further state that the Department follows a Relative Merit Point System for assessing the financial condition and indigent circumstances of applicants seeking compassionate appointment and that the claims of eligible applicants are comparatively assessed by a competent committee constituted for the said purpose.
4. It is further stated that the claim of the respondent was placed before the competent committee constituted for considering such requests. The committee assessed the claim of the respondent along with the claims of other applicants seeking compassionate appointment. According to the petitioners, the respondent secured lesser merit points when compared with other applicants and therefore the committee did not recommend his case for appointment within the limited quota available for compassionate appointments. On that basis, the request made by the respondent came to be rejected by the Department by order dated 04.12.2020.
5. Aggrieved by the rejection of his claim, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by filing O.A.No.149 of 2021 challenging the rejection order passed by the Department. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and the materials placed before it, allowed the Original Application by order dated 12.07.2023 and set aside the rejection order passed by the Department.
6. Challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the Tribunal erred in interfering with the decision taken by the Department in accordance with the applicable scheme. It was submitted that compassionate appointment is only an exception to the normal rule of recruitment and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The learned counsel would further submit that the Department had considered the claim of the respondent along with other applicants and that the respondent had secured lesser merit points under the Relative Merit Point System and therefore his case was not recommended by the committee. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal failed to appreciate these aspects and interfered with the administrative decision taken in accordance with the scheme. 8. Per co
