Compassionate appointment denied as family not indigent; husband's employment and lands disqualify under rules.

(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order in A1/177/2025 dated 24.11.2025 on the file of the third respondent and consequential direction to respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner in the third respondent office (Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram) based on the compassionate grounds.

2.It is the case of the writ petitioner that she belongs to scheduled caste community. Her sister, namely, Kayalvizhi, worked as a typist in the office of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and she died during her service, on 17.08.2023. The deceased not get married at the time of her death. The petitioner's mother aged about 48 years. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a representation seeking compassionate appointment before the third respondent, on

21.03.2025. The third respondent rejected the said representation on the ground that the petitioner's husband was working as Loan Officer in Cholamandalam Finance. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition challenging the said rejection order passed by the third respondent.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the rejection order passed by the third respondent on the ground that the petitioner's husband was working is un-sustainable in law and the order impugned came to be passed, after a lapse of two years. If the third respondent considered the representation of the petitioner earlier, she would not have suffered. The petitioner and her old aged mother have no other source for their livelihood. Therefore, the rejection order passed by the third respondent is un-sustainable in law.

4.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents

2 & 3 would submit that after due enquiry on the application submitted by petitioner, an enquiry report was submitted and it was found that there are contradiction on the eligibility of the applicant for the compassionate ground appointment, ie., mother of the deceased employee owns land and is not dependent on the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner owns agricultural land and also employed in a Bank and the petitioner does not meet out the eligibility criteria for the appointment on compassionate ground. The third respondent rightly rejected the application.

5.We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.

6.It is seen from the records that the sister of the writ petitioner, namely, Kayalvizhi, was worked as Typist in the third respondent Office. During her service, she died on 17.08.2023. At that time deceased not get married and her mother also aged about 48 years. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted the application for appointment on compassionate appointment, on 22.11.2023 before the third respondent. The learned Principal District Judge called for an enquiry report from the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ramanathapuram and called for salary certificate of the petitioner's husband. The petitioner has also submitted salary certificate of her husband for a period from 11.01.2025 to March 2025. In the enquiry, it was found that the husband of the petitioner has resigned his job on 22.03.2025. However, he is owning agricultural lands and he is doing cultivation. It is also found that the mother of the deceased employee also owns land and she is not dependent on the petitioner.

7.As per Rule 2(1)(f) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, “Family” under which Rule 2(1)(f)(ii) states that in the case of a deceased unmarried Government servant, his father, mother, brother or sister. Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appoin