IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Latha Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The chief Engineer (General)

Highways Department, O/o. The Chief engineer (H) C and M, 2nd floor, Integrated Chief Engineers complex, HRS compound, No. 76 Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai 25

2.the Divisional Engineer O/o. The Divisional Engineer (H), C And M Thiruvallur, No. 155/17 Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Tiruvallur 602 001

3.The Assistant Divisional Engineer O/o. The Assistant Divisional Engineer (H), C And M Thiruvallur, No. 155/17 Jawaharlal Nehru Salai, Tiruvallur 602 001.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER; This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to consider petitioners representation made on 17.03.2025 for appointment on compassionate ground on the account of death of her father late N.Chittirai

4.02.1998 who was worked as a Road Worker under the 1st respondent.

For Petitioner(s): M/s.S.Aswin Karthikeyan For Respondent: Mr.T.M.Rajangam, GA ORDER Seeking for a direction upon the respondents 1 to 3 to grant her appointment on compassionate ground, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that her father was employed as Road worker in Tamil Nadu Highways Department and he passed away on 04.02.1998 while in service. Immediately thereafter, the mother of the petitioner preferred an application on 25.01.1999 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. Since the mother of the petitioner was not educationally qualified, her application was not considered and rejected. At that relevant point of time, the petitioner was a minor. Later, the mother of the petitioner preferred a writ petition in WP.No.21163 of 2016 seeking appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. This Court, vide order dated 27.09.2022, dismissed the said writ petition observing as follows:

''2.The petitioner states that her husband Late Mr.M.Chittirai served as a Road worker in Tamil Nadu Highways Department and died on 04.02.1998, while in service. The petitioner submitted an application on 25.01.1999, but the said application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the minimum educational qualification for appointment in the Government Department. During the relevant point of time, the daughter of the writ petitioner was minor and studying in a School. Thus, on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 14.03.2008 to provide appointment to her daughter Selvi.C.Latha. The said application was also rejected by the respondents through impugned order dated 14.03.2013. The respondents rejected the application to provide appointment to the daughter of the deceased employee on the ground that the application itself was submitted after a lapse of about ten years from the date of the death of the deceased employee.

3.The purpose and object of the scheme of the compassionate appointment is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account on the sudden death of an employee. It is not the scheme where one appointment is to provide to the family of the deceased employee. Scheme is to be implemented strictly in accordance with its terms. Scheme being violative of Articles 14 and 16 cannot be expanded so as to deprive the fundamental rights of all other eligible citizen who all are aspiring to secure public employment through open competitive process. In the present case, the petitioner was found not eligible for appointment. Since, her Daughter submitted an application after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the death of the deceased employee. The employee died in the year 1998, as of now about 24 years lapsed from the date of the death of the deceased employee her application cannot be considered. Even a long delay is also a ground to reject the appointment on compassionate ground. The long delay would result in drawing a factual inference that the penurious