Compassionate appointment cannot be rejected solely on alleged irregularity where long service and regular pay are established.

The petitioner’s father was appointed as a packer by a Special Officer’s resolution dated 11 September 1992.

The respondents contended that he was engaged temporarily on daily wages, without Employment Exchange sponsorship and contrary to Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, and was not within the sanctioned cadre strength.

He died in service on 6 December 2022, and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 1 April 2024.

The Deputy Registrar rejected the application on the basis that the father’s appointment was irregular and had not been regularised.

The petitioner challenged that rejection under Article 226, relying on a 2022 pay certificate indicating that his father had received time-scale pay and allowances.

Whether the petitioner’s compassionate-appointment application could be rejected on the ground that his father’s appointment was irregular and had not been regularised, in light of the admitted appointment and evidence of his service conditions.

Compassionate appointment is an exception to public employment, and applications must be considered by the competent authority in strict accordance with the applicable guidelines.

The respondents relied on Rule 149 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules, 1988, contending that recruitment without Employment Exchange sponsorship and outside the cadre strength was unlawful.

The Court did not cite or apply any precedent, nor did it finally determine the legality of the father’s appointment; it reviewed the rejection under its jurisdiction under Article 226 and directed reconsideration under the applicable compassionate-appointment guidelines.

The Court noted that the respondents admitted the father’s appointment by Special Officer’s resolution and that the pay certificate showed he had been treated as a regular employee, receiving time-scale pay and allowances, including PF and EPS, during service exceeding two decades.

In those circumstances, the Court considered the rejection—based on the appointment being irregular and unregularised—fallacious and set it aside.

It did not itself decide that the petitioner qualified for compassionate appointment; instead, it required the respondents to assess the application under the applicable guidelines.

It set aside the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 28 June 2024 and remitted the petitioner’s application dated 1 April 2024 to the respondents for fresh consideration under the applicable guidelines, to be completed within eight weeks of receipt of the order.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.