P.Subash v. The General Manager

Order The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the respondent to consider his representation dated 02.02.2026 for compassionate appointment.

¶2It is the case of the petitioner that her father, Palaniswami was employed as Driver in the respondent-Corporation on 13.12.2011. He died on 30.01.2019 while in service. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother submitted a representation dated 24.02.2023 to the respondents seeking gratuity arrears and pension benefits. Since the said representation was not considered by the respondent, the petitioner's mother had filed W.P.No.20969 of 2023 before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents 3 and 4 therein to consider her representation. This Court, by order dated 17.07.2023, directed the respondents 3 and 4 to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Since the said order was not complied with, Cont.P.No.2010 of 2024 was filed wherein this Court directed the respondents to process the application. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation dated 02.02.2026 seeking compassionate appointment. However, the respondents have Page3 of 6 neither considered nor passed any orders on the said representation till date. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶3A perusal of the affidavit and the documents filed would indicate that the petitioner's father had joined the respondent-Corporation on

31.12.2011 and passed away on 30.01.2019 and had therefore not put in more than 10 years of service. That apart, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner's father had been terminated from service and on humanitarian grounds, the terminal benefits were given to his mother after she had moved this Court in W.P.No.20969 of 2022. That apart, the petitioner has sought for compassionate appointment only on 02.02.2026 that too after receiving the terminal benefits.

¶4Therefore, in the light of the above, the petitioner cannot seek compassionate appointment in the place of a person who had been terminated from service and who had not even put in 10 years of service. That being case, no useful purpose would be served in directing the respondents to consider his representation. Page4 of 6

¶5In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 09-03-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SRN To The General Manager Tamil Nadu state Transport corporation Ltd., 12 Ramakrishna Road, Hasthampatti, Salem 636 007 WPoNo.o9045oofo2026 P.T.ASHAoJ. SRN WPoNo.o9045oofo2026 09-03-2026 Page5oofo6 Page6 of 6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA P.Subash S/o. P.Palaniswami, No. 29, 5th street, Annai Nagar, Mettur Dam, Salem district 636 402 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The General Manager Tamil Nadu state Transport corporation Ltd., 12 Ramakrishna Road, Hasthampatti, Salem 636 007 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 02.02.2026 seeking compassionate appointment and to pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law within a time frame as fixed by this court. For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Venkadesh Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Raja Standing Counsel Page2 of 6