In a significant order, the Madras High Court has condemned the inaction and delays by government officials in processing a compassionate appointment application that remained pending for nearly 34 months. While dismissing the application filed by the son of the deceased employee, the Court directed that the widow of the deceased, who had applied earlier, be appointed instead.

Contents

CASE BACKGROUND COURT’S ANALYSIS REPRESENTATION CASE DETAILS

A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan delivered the judgment, criticizing systemic inefficiencies and widespread corruption in government departments.

“We have to acknowledge that corruption is rampant in every organ of the Government today. Requiring a person who seeks compassionate appointment to get three certificates once over again, we are sure, is only with the object of facilitating the collection of illegal gratification by those officers. Having said so, we should also acknowledge our helplessness in curbing the menace of corruption,” the Court observed.

-Story After Advertisement -

CASE BACKGROUND

The appellant’s father, a Record Clerk in the Highways Department, passed away while in service. Following his death, his wife (Tmt. Amudha) applied for a compassionate appointment on January 5, 2018. However, the authorities failed to respond for almost three years, with the first communication being sent only on October 16, 2020.

Amudha, in the interim, requested that the job be given to her son Gowdham, who had completed the 11th standard. After attaining a majority, he filed a fresh application in 2022. This application was rejected because:

It was filed beyond three years from the date of death, and
The applicant was not 18 years old at the time of the original application.

COURT’S ANALYSIS

The High Court acknowledged that while the appellant’s request could not be entertained as per the rules, the authorities’ prolonged delay and rigid procedural requirements were unacceptable.

-Story After Advertisement -

“In the case on hand, we find that the mother had already applied seeking compassionate appointment. Since her request was unduly delayed and the authorities adopted a pedantic approach in seeking fresh certificates which cannot be obtained without a reasonable expense, the mother thought it fit to nominate the appellant, probably because the cost of obtaining the certificates can be earned by the appellant, since he has more years of service,” the Bench noted.

While upholding the rejection of the son’s application, the Court said it could not “be mute spectators to the inaction on the part of the respondents for nearly 34 months.”

“By keeping the matter pending for 34 months, the respondents are not justified in seeking re-validated certificates. It is now not in dispute that Tmt. Amudha is qualified for compassionate appointment. We, therefore, direct the respondents to immediately offer compassionate appointment to Tmt. Amudha commensurate with her qualification. The appointment order is to be issued within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

-Story After Advertisement -