Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 84761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, J
K. Usha – Appellant
Versus
Secretary To The Government Hindu Religious and charitable endowments department – Respondent
WP No. 32778 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Ganeshkumar
For the Respondents: S. Ilamvaludhi
Compassionate appointment is not a right but a relief granted based on dependency and immediate financial need; significant delays in application and failure to prove dependency disentitle a candidate from such appointment.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Dependency - The claim for compassionate appointment cannot be sustained unless the candidate establishes that they were dependent on the income of the deceased employee at the time of death or at the time of application. (Para 4)
(B) Compassionate Appointment - Delay and Age - A claim for appointment made after a significant delay (approximately 12 years from the date of death) and where the candidate has reached an advanced age (46 years) is not a fit case for the grant of compassionate appointment. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment despite the lack of proven dependency and significant delay in filing the claim.
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed for calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings in Na.Ka.No.205/2023/A1 dated 29.09.2025, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in accordance with G.O.(Ms) No.33 dated 08.03.2023 of the Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1) Department.
The petitioner herein claims to be the daughter of one Late Mrs.Krishnaveni, who worked as a Daily Wage Contract Labourer in Arulmigu Subramaniswamy Temple, Tirutani. The mother of the petitioner made a claim for regularization of her services along with other similarly placed persons and filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18565 of 2005 seeking regularization of her services and the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 26.03.2003. The said order is also stated to have been confirmed vide order dated 19.01.2007 passed in W.A.No.2846 of 2003. However, even before the services of the petitioner's mother were regularized, she passed away on 01.06.2007. It is further the case of the petitioner that immediately thereafter, the brother of the petitioner herein, by name Mr.V.Nagarajan, made a claim for compassionate appointment on 22.08.2008 and while the said application was pending, he withdrew his claim and gave a ‘No Objection’ to the petitioner herein to make a claim for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner made a claim for compassionate appointment in the year 2019 and the said request of the petitioner has now been rejected through the impugned order dated 29.09.2025.
From the perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner got married in the year 2019 and has two children and is living separately. Further, from the entire affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, there is nothing to show that the petitioner is dependent on the income of her deceased mother either on the date of her demise or as on date. Further, for the reasons best known to her, the petitioner has not disclosed as to what her husband is doing or about his source of income, etc. The averments further go to show that the petitioner's family is facing financial difficulties to meet their livelihood, etc.
Unless and until the petitioner establishes that she was dependent on the income of her deceased mother, the question of the petitioner making a claim for compassionate appointment does not arise.
Be that as it may, the mother of the petitioner passed away as early as in the year 2007 and the claim of the petitioner is for compassionate appointment, while she is aged 46 years. Taking into consideration the above factors and also the reasons assigned in the impugned proceedings, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner can claim compassionate appointment. Hence, this Court does not find any error or illegality in the impugned proceedings dated 29.09.2025.
In the circumstances, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned proceedings and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
