THE CHAIRMAN vs A.SUMATHI

W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.09.2026
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN
W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
AND
CMP NO.23465 OF 2023
The Chairman
Chennai Port Authority
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001. … Appellant
Vs.
A.Sumathi
W/o. Late Ananthanarayanan
No.24, Krishnamurthy Street,
Erukkencherry,
Chennai – 600 118. … Respondent

PRAYER : Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent,
praying to set aside the order dated 08.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.32528
of 2014.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi
For Respondent : Mr.K.Raja

Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 02:21:52 pm )

W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
J U D G M E N T
(Judgment of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.)
The present intra-court appeal has been instituted by the
Chennai Port Authority challenging the writ order dated 08.03.2023
passed in W.P.No.32528 of 2014. It is the second round of litigation
between the parties.
2.The facts in brief are that the husband of the respondent –
A.Sumathi was employed in Chennai Port Trust as Assistant Technician
and died in harness on 05.01.2001, while in service. The respondent
registered her name for appointment on compassionate grounds. Since
the respondent was not considered for appointment, she filed a writ
petition in W.P.No.18331 of 2008. The said writ petition was allowed by a
learned Single Judge of this Court on 10.08.2009 directing the appellant
herein to offer compassionate appointment to the respondent, either in
Class III or in Class IV Service, as per the seniority of the respondent for
compassionate appointment. Challenging the writ order, Chennai Port
Trust filed a writ appeal in W.A.No.2453 of 2011 and a Division Bench of
this Court dismissed the same on 14.02.2012. Against the said order, the
Page No.2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 02:21:52 pm )

W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
Chennai Port Trust preferred SLP (C) No.29004/2012 and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India dismissed the same on 31.03.2014. Even before
dismissal of the SLP, the respondent was appointed on compassionate
grounds on 25.06.2013. She is presently working in the Chennai Port
Trust.
3.After completion of the first round of litigation, as stated
above, the respondent filed a fresh writ petition in W.P.No.32528 of 2014
claiming retrospective appointment on compassionate grounds as given
in the case of one Smt.S.Jayachitra. The said writ petition came to be
allowed by the writ court, which resulted in filing of the present writ
appeal by the Chennai Port Authority.
4.Perusal of the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Jayachitra’s case in SLA (Civil) No.34085
of 2013 would reveal that a specific direction was issued by the Apex
Court to appoint Smt.S.Jayachitra relating back to the date on which
other persons were appointed on compassionate grounds in 2005. The
SLP was dismissed by imposing cost of Rs.1,00,000/-. Her pay was also
directed to be fixed accordingly.
Page No.3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 02:21:52 pm )

W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
5.However, in the case of the respondent herein, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, confirming the orders passed by the
Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of this Court. A Division
Bench of this Court passed an order directing the appellant herein to
offer compassionate appointment to the respondent herein as per the
seniority in a suitable post. Thereafter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
dismissed the SLP confirming the order passed by the Division Bench
and the said order has already been implemented by the appellant by
appointing the respondent herein on compassionate grounds on
25.06.2013. Any further benefit by way of another round of litigation
cannot be granted since the Hon’ble Supreme Court has already
dismissed the SLP filed by the respondent and confirmed the order
passed by this Court.
6.In view of the fact that the appellant has implemented the
order passed by the Division Bench, as confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, the respondent cannot claim any further relief or other
benefits by citing the other employee, who was appointed on
compassionate grounds. Compassionate appointment is a concession
and in the present case, by virtue of the orders passed by this Court, the
Page No.4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 02:21:52 pm )

W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds. Thus, granting
retrospective appointment or retrospective fixation of pay in the present
case would set a wrong precedent.
7.Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that no
further benefits needs to be conferred on the respondent. Consequently,
the impugned writ order dated 08.03.2023 passed in W.P.No.32528 of
2014 is set aside and the writ appeal stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.

[S.M.S., J.] [K.G.R., J.]

02.09.2026
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
TK
To
The Chairman
Chennai Port Authority
Rajaji Salai,
Chennai – 600 001.
Page No.5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 02:21:52 pm )

W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND
KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN, J.
TK

W.A.NO.2811 OF 2023
02.09.2026
Page No.6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/09/2026 02:21:52 pm )