Compassionate appointment must meet prescribed timelines and cannot be granted decades after an employee’s death.

The petitioner’s father, a Tamil Nadu Electricity Board employee, died in service on 2 September 1992. The petitioner’s brother had earlier sought compassionate appointment but was rejected for lacking the required qualification. The petitioner attained majority on 14 October 2000 and applied for compassionate appointment on 3 October 2001, enclosing supporting documents, including family members’ no-objection certificates and a Tahsildar’s certificate

On 18 November 2024, the first respondent rejected the application as having been made beyond the three-year period prescribed by Board Proceedings No. 46. The petitioner sought certiorari to quash that rejection and a direction for compassionate appointment

Whether the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, made years after his father’s death, was barred by the three-year limit under Board Proceedings No. 46

Whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the delay and the time elapsed before the writ petition was decided

Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment, intended to provide immediate financial assistance to dependants left in penury by an employee’s death

The Court applied Board Proceedings No. 46, which required an application for compassionate appointment to be submitted within three years of the employee’s death

It noted the petitioner’s reliance on Chief Engineer/Personnel v. S. Suder, 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 3290, and M. Mathiyalagan v. Chief Engineer, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 12487, concerning applications made within three years of attaining majority

It also relied on the Division Bench decision in P. Poongodi v. Chairman, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 29093, for the principle that compassionate appointment must be granted strictly in accordance with the applicable departmental guidelines

The Court found that the petitioner’s father died in 1992 and the application was submitted in 2001, beyond the period prescribed by Board Proceedings No. 46

Although the petitioner relied on decisions addressing applications made within three years of attaining majority, the Court considered the applicable guidelines and the later Division Bench ruling in P. Poongodi to require strict compliance with those guidelines

It further reasoned that, by 2026, approximately 34 years had passed since the employee’s death; granting appointment at that stage would not serve the scheme’s purpose of providing immediate relief in the circumstances existing after the death

It dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit and made no order as to costs