THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR vs M. RAMA

WA No. 3376 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
WA No. 3376 of 2024
&
C.M.P. No. 26184 of 2024
CNR:{HCMA011837492024}
The Chairman And Managing Director
Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
2, Hospital Road, Villupuram.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. M. Rama
2.The Joint Registrar
Co-operative Department,
Villupuram Zone, Villupuram.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Writ appeal filed under clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order
dated 30.11.2023 passed in WP No.9008/2023.
For Appellant(s): Mr.R. Arumugam
For Respondent(s): Ms. M.E. Rani Selvam for R1
Mr.R. Veeramani,
Special Government Pleader for
R2
1\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

WA No. 3376 of 2024
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J. )
This is a pathetic case of a widow, who lost her husband, by name,
nd
V. Murthy, who was an employee under the 2 respondent/Co-operative
Department and dismissed from service for his prolonged unauthorised absence
due to illness. When the widow sought for compassionate appointment, her
request was rejected on the ground that her husband was not in service on the
date of his death. However, on intervention by this Court, she was given liberty
to challenge the dismissal order of her husband posthumously along with a
request to grant her appointment on compassionate grounds.
2. Pursuant thereto, the widow of said V. Murthy/1st respondent
nd
herein preferred an appeal to the 2 respondent/Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Department challenging the dismissal order of her husband along with a request
nd
for appointment on compassionate grounds. The 2 respondent considered the
said appeal and rejected it by order dated 07.10.2022 on the sole ground that
st
since the 1 respondent’s husband was dismissed from service, she cannot claim
compassionate appointment. However, there was no reference made to the
st
challenge made by the 1 respondent to the dismissal order of her husband. The
st
said order dated 07.10.2022 was challenged by the 1 respondent in W.P. No.
9008 of 2023.
2\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

WA No. 3376 of 2024
3. The learned Single Judge, on finding that the rejection of the appeal
challenging the dismissal order, being a non-speaking order, without assigning
reason and the consequential rejection of the request for compassionate
appointment was meritless, allowed the writ petition, by order dated 30.11.2023
and the operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:
“16. In the result, the order of the dismissal dated 25.02.2015
passed by the first respondent herein, as confirmed by the first
respondent in the order passed in review petition dated
03.08.2015, are set aside. Consequently, the following
directions are issued:-
(i) The respondents herein shall forthwith pass
orders, notionally reinstating the petitioner’s husband
V. Murthy into service from 25.02.2015 onwards and
record that since he had died on 04.04.2015, the
petitioner would be eligible for death cum retirement
benefits.
(ii) Such orders as aforesaid shall be passed, within a
period of four ((04) weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order.
(iii) The order dated 22.05.2015 rejecting the
petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment, is
hereby set aside.
(iv) The second respondent shall forthwith take up the
application filed by the petitioner dated 16.04.2015,
seeking for compassionate appointment and pass
favourable orders, appointing the petitioner on
compassionate grounds to any suitable post, within a
period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. While passing such orders on the petitioner’s
application dated 16.04.2015, the second respondent is
at liberty to seek for all supporting documents to
3\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

WA No. 3376 of 2024
substantiate that the petitioner herein is the legally
wedded wife of the late employee V. Murthy and when
satisfied, shall issue necessary posting orders.”
Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the
nd
2 respondent in the writ petition.
4. Since the learned Single Judge has, in detail and vividly narrated
the background facts, it is needless to reiterate the same.
5. The Chairman and Managing Director, Central Co-operative Bank,
Villupuram has preferred this appeal on the ground that compassionate
appointment can be granted only if the dependant of an employee, who died,
st
while in service or if the employee is medically invalidated. The 1
respondent/Rama is neither a dependant of an employee, who died, while in
service nor is she qualified for any last entry level post. According to the
st
learned counsel for the appellant, V. Murthy, the husband of the 1 respondent
was dismissed from service and after the dismissal, he died. Therefore, she will
not fall under the category of dependant of an employee, who died, while in
service. According to the learned counsel, as far as dependency is concerned,
there is a cloud over her marital status with V. Murthy.
st
6. From the records produced, we find that the 1 respondent/Rama
was married to V. Murthy on 08.11.2010. The said V.Murthy was appointed as
an Assistant in the year 1997 in the appellant Bank. When he was transferred
from Villupuram to Thyagadurgam Branch on 29.06.2012, he had gone on
4\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

WA No. 3376 of 2024
medical leave for a period of three months from 09.07.2012. Even after the
expiry of medical leave on 09.10.2012, he did not join duty. Hence, a charge
memo was issued against him for unauthorised absence on 18.04.2013. Though
in the domestic enquiry conducted, initially, the said V. Murthy had participated
and submitted his defence statement, subsequently, when the charges against
him were held proved by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority had
called for further explanation, the said V. Murthy, for reasons best known to
him, did not submit his further explanation nor availed the opportunity of
personal hearing. Hence, punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on
him. Soon thereafter, the said V. Murthy died on 04.04.2015.
st
7. When the 1 respondent/Rama filed W.P. No. 19235 of 2015
seeking compassionate appointment, the said writ petition was disposed of
granting her liberty to challenge the termination order of her husband. Thus,
she filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Department/2nd
respondent herein, who had passed an order, which was found to be a non-
speaking order by the learned Single Judge.
8. On a reading of the impugned order, we are fully in agreement with
the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. The dismissal of V.Murthy
from service pursuant to enquiry proceedings, in which he was not able to
participate due to his illness and which is clearly proved by his subsequent
death, should have been considered on merits and a speaking order should have
5\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

WA No. 3376 of 2024
been passed. Since a non-speaking order has been passed, the learned Single
Judge has rightly observed that the order passed dismissing V. Murthy from
service is non-est and he must be deemed to be in service on the date of his
death.
9. The only objection on the part of the appellant could be whether the
reinstatement order with all backwages and attendant benefits ordered by the
learned Single Judge satisfies the test of law.
10. We, in this case, find that a prolonged unauthorised absence has led
to dismissal of the employee V. Murthy from service. Though, by way of an
st
appeal, the 1 respondent/Rama has given some explanation for his absence,
that cannot lead to notionally reinstating V. Murthy, in service from 25.02.2015
st
onwards and record that since he had died on 04.04.2015, the 1 respondent
would be eligible for death cum retirement benefits. To that extent, we hold that
notional reinstatement shall be taken into consideration only for providing
st st
compassionate appointment to the 1 respondent and the 1 respondent’s
application for compassionate appointment must be considered within a period
of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and she must be
given a posting, according to her eligibility.
11. We make it clear that the above direction will not enure any other
st
monetary benefit to the 1 respondent herein in respect of service rendered by
V. Murthy and this notional reinstatement is only for the purpose of considering
6\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

WA No. 3376 of 2024
her request for compassionate appointment. The appellant herein shall comply
with the direction issued by this Court in respect of providing compassionate
st
appointment to the 1 respondent without delay, provided she satisfies other
requirements of employment.
12. The writ appeal stands disposed of with the above directions. No
costs. Connected C.M.P. is closed.
(DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN J.) (E.MANOHARAN J.)
28-10-2026
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
nv
To
1. The Chairman And Managing
Director
Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
2, Hospital Road, Villupuram.
2.The Joint Registrar
Co-operative Department, Villupuram
Zone, Villupuram.
7\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )

WA No. 3376 of 2024
DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
AND
E.MANOHARAN J.
nv
WA No. 3376 of 2024

28-10-2026
8\8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:13:19 pm )