After Ration Shop Worker’s 29 Years’ Service, Madras HC Sets Aside Rejection of Son’s Compassionate-Job Plea Based on “Irregular Appointment,” Orders Fresh Review

In brief

The question

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s request on the sole ground that his father’s appointment was irregular was supported by the record

The court held

The Court set aside the rejection order dated 16 November 2023 and remitted the matter to the third respondent society to reconsider the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment with reference to G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 8 March 2023

It also directed

The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioner’s father was appointed as a ration-shop salesman in the third respondent society on 31 December 1993 and died in service on 19 January 2023.

p. 2

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment; the second respondent rejected the request on the ground that his father had been irregularly appointed. The petitioner challenged that order, relying on his father’s salary records, which showed a time-scale salary, allowances, and deductions for LIC and EPF

pp. 2–5

The respondents maintained that the father had been a daily-wage employee and relied on G.O.Ms.No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1), dated 8 March 2023

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s request on the sole ground that his father’s appointment was irregular was supported by the record

pp. 4–5

ii.Whether the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment should be reconsidered under G.O.Ms.No.33, dated 8 March 2023

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

The Court recognised that compassionate appointment is an exception to public employment and must be considered in accordance with the applicable departmental guidelines

p. 3, 5

It referred to G.O.Ms.No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development (Q1), dated 8 March 2023, as the applicable guideline for reconsideration of the petitioner’s request

pp. 5–6

04Reasoning

The respondents produced no document to substantiate their assertion that the father’s appointment remained irregular, relying instead on the claim that he was a daily-wage employee.

pp. 4–5

The salary slip showing allowances and deductions supported the inference that he had subsequently been regularised.

pp. 4–5

The Court therefore found the stated ground for rejection unsustainable. However, it did not itself determine the petitioner’s entitlement to compassionate appointment; that request remained subject to the applicable guidelines, including G.O.Ms.No.33

pp. 5–6