##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN WA No. 1062 of 2024 CNR:{HCMA010584092024}

P.Gayathri D/o.N.Pandurangan, NO.24/56, Theettith Thottam

1st Street, Perambur, Chennai 11.

..Appellant Vs

1. The Principal Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Social Welfare Department Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.

2. The Social Welfare Board Rep.by its Chairman, Chepauk, Chennai 5.

3. The Commissioner Social Welfare Commissionerate Panagal Maligai, Saidapet, Chennai 15.

4. The Director Social Welfare Commissionerate, Panagal Maligai 2nd Floor, Saidapet, Chennai 15

5. The Tahsildar Tahsildar Office, perambur Tk, Chennai 11.

..Respondents Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause XV of the Letters Patent to set aside the dismissal order dated 20.4.2023 made in WP.No. 8124/2023 and consequently direct the respondent 1 to 4 to provide employment to the appellant under compassionate appointment.

For Appellant : Mr.A.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.K.Rajesh, Government Advocate

Judgment

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present intra court appeal has been instituted challenging the writ order dated 20.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.8124 of 2023.

2. The mother of the appellant was working as Assistant in Social Welfare Board, Chepauk, Chennai and died on 13.02.2019 while she was in service. The appellant is the first daughter. She submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The Director of Social Welfare conducted an enquiry and found that the family of the deceased employee was not in indigent circumstances and their annual income is more than Rs.2 Lakhs and on that basis, the application was not considered. The appellant filed a writ petition. The writ court also rejected the claim on the ground that the family of the deceased employee was not suffering from any hardship. The writ court made a finding that in the event of considering the application, it would unwittingly tantamount to unduly favouring the petitioner to the detriment of other citizens whose gravity of suffering may be comparatively of higher magnitude, which cannot be countenanced. The scheme of compassionate appointment also stipulates conditions that the family, on account of the death of the employee must be in penurious circumstances.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the husband of the deceased employee was working as a daily wager and the family is suffering. Therefore, the reasons stated by the department is incorrect. 4. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would oppose by stating that after the death of the mother of the appellant, she has completed MBA in Satyabama University by paying the fees. On enquiry, the authorities found that the family was not in indigent circumstances. The husband of the deceased employee is also employed in a private firm.

Considering all these factors, the application was rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Canara Bank and Another -vs- M.Mahesh Kumar and Others (2015) 4 MLJ 479 (SC) and Malaya Nanda Sethy -vs- State of Orissa and Others (Civil Appeal No.4103 of

2022 dated 20.05.2022.

5. The scheme of compassionate appointment differs from State to State and organisation to organisation. Compassionate appointment is not a right, but a concession. Various employers impose various conditions for compassionate appointment. However, the prime condition would be indigent circumstances of the family. The very object of the Scheme is to mitigate the circumstances arising on account of the sudden demise of an employee. Therefore, ultimately if the family is in penurious circumstances, then alone the authorities will be in a position to consider the application seeking compassionate appointment. Hereditary appointments in public posts are