Corruption Is Rampant In Every Organ Of The Government Today; Compassionate Appointment Application Kept Pending For Nearly 34 Months: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court stated that it cannot be a ‘mute spectator’ to the inaction on the part of the Respondents for nearly 34 months.
While remarking that an application for compassionate appointment was kept pending for nearly 34 months by the authorities, the Madras High Court acknowledged that corruption is rampant in every organ of the Government today.
The Court upheld the rejection of the compassionate appointment application of the Appellant, but directed the Respondents to offer compassionate appointment to his mother instead, who was qualified for the same as the wife of a Government servant who died on duty. The Court stated that it cannot be “mute spectators to the inaction on the part of the respondents for nearly 34 months.”
A Division Bench of Justice R Subramanian and Justice G Arul Murugan remarked, “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 collection of illegal gratification by those officers. Having said so, we should also acknowledge our helplessness in curbing the menace of corruption.”
Advocate M Vijayakumar appeared for the Appellant, while Government Advocate KH Ravikumar represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant's father, who was working as a Record Clerk in the Highways Department, died during duty. At the time of his death, his wife (mother of the Appellant) was the only person qualified for compassionate appointment.
The mother applied for compassionate appointment in 2018. However, the application was kept pending for nearly 34 months. In response, the mother informed the Respondents that she wished for her son, the Appellant, to be considered for the job, as he had completed 11th standard at that time. This request was rejected. After attaining majority, the Appellant made a fresh application in 2022, which was also rejected on the grounds that it was filed after three years of the Government servant's death and that the applicant must be 18 years old at the time of application.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “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 held that “we are unable to fault the learned Single Judge for having upheld the rejection of the appellant's application. At the same time, we cannot be mute spectators to the inaction on the part of the respondents for nearly 34 months from 05.01.2018 to 16.10.2020. The first response to the mother's application dated 05.01.2018 was on 16.10.2020, that is, after the expiry of 34 months. There is no explanation for this delay.”
Consequently, the Court ordered, “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.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the Appeal.
Cause Title: Gowdham v. The Director General, National Highways Department & Ors. (W.A.No.355 of 2025)
