The State of Tamil Nadu v. P.Selvarani

O R D E R The present review application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 25.10.2024 passed in W.P.(MD) No.19415 of 2024, wherein this Court has directed the third respondent to comply with order of the second respondent and consider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶2The said writ petition was filed by the wife of a deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment after quashing the order passed by the third respondent.

¶3The second respondent in the writ petition by way of proceedings dated 17.05.2023 has categorised the list of beneficiaries, who are eligible to get compassionate appointment. However, the third respondent has passed an order impugned in the writ petition rejecting the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, primarily on the ground that the deceased was not a regular employee.

¶4This Court, vide order dated 25.10.2024, had quashed the said order on the ground that when the higher official included the name of the petitioner in the list of beneficiaries, the subordinate official cannot take a different stand.

¶5Now, the present review application has been filed. In the stay petition, it has been held as follows: "6. It is most respectfully submitted that since the legal heirs of the employees on consolidated pay, whose services are not regularized, are generally not eligible for compassionate appointment in Tamil Nadu, according to the State Government guidelines, the Writ Petitioner cannot be granted Compassionate Appointment as per the rules and guidelines in force. But the Writ Petitioner's case due to oversight was wrongly included in the Seniority List of the Commissioner, Directorate of Backward Classes Welfare in list, in serial number 20. The same is just an oversight and the Compassionate Appointment cannot be made in violation of the rules. The guidelines in force specifically excludes compassionate appointment to the individuals in temporary, consolidated pay, daily wage, or contract appointments. In summary the legal heirs of all those employees whose positions are not regularized are not eligible to be considered for Compassionate Appointment."

¶6It is therefore clear that according to the learned counsel appearing for the review applicant, the order of the second respondent is erroneous. Such a ground cannot be taken in the review application.

¶7In view of the abovesaid fact, this Review Application stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

27.01.2026 NCC : Yes/No

Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No apd R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J. apd Rev. Aplw(md) No.10 of 2026

27.01.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 27.01.2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR Rev. Aplw(md) No.10 of 2026 in W.P.(MD) No.19415 of 2024 and W.M.P.(MD) No.1728 of 2026 1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Backward Classes, Most Backward Class and Minorities Welfare Department, Secretariat, Chennai 9. 2. Commissioner, Directorate of Backward Classes Welfare, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 3. The District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer, Thanjavur District, Thanjavur. ... Review Petitioners Vs P.Selvarani ... Respondent PRAYER: Review Application is filed under Order XLVII, rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 114 of CPC, against the order dated 25.10.2024 in W.P.(MD) No. 19415 of 2024. For Petitioners : Mr. N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader For Respondent : Mr.K.Gurunathan *****