Madras HC says heirs of temporary staff not eligible for compassionate jobs It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme.

Madras HC says heirs of temporary staff not eligible for compassionate jobs It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme.

Madras High Court 

Express News Service Updated on:  14 Dec 2025, 9:11 am 

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has set aside an order of the central administrative tribunal (CAT) which had ordered the Southern Railway to pass appropriate orders on the application of the legal heir of a deceased temporary worker for a job under compassionate grounds.

A division bench of justice SM Subramaniam and C Kumarappan held that the scheme of the Union government for compassionate appointments does not provide for appointment to the legal heir of a temporary worker.

It allowed the appeal filed by the Southern Railway challenging the April 21, 2022 order of the CAT passed on the petition filed by D Marimuthu, whose father, a casual labourer, died on harness, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

The bench noted Clause 2 (B) Note-II of the scheme of Central government for compassionate appointments defines the eligibility of only the legal heir of “Government Servant” appointed on regular basis and not those working on daily wages.

Advertisement “The scheme itself is not applicable to casual labourers, therefore, the CAT cannot expand the scope of the scheme so as to provide a government job which is in violation of the constitutional principles and would infringe the rights of numerous eligible meritorious candidates, who are all longing to secure public employment by participating in open competitive process,” the bench said in the order.

It observed that the scheme of compassionate appointment is a special scheme and not a constitutional scheme. Such appointment is a concession and can never be claimed as an absolute right.

Marimuthu’s father joined the Southern Railway as a casual labourer on April 11, 1973 and his temporary status was confirmed on October 1, 1974.

He died on October 20, 1987. After a lapse of 16 years, he applied for compassionate appointment. It was rejected on the ground that the legal heirs of casual labourers are not eligible. He approached the CAT which directed Southern Railway to consider it; again, the application was rejected. He filed another petition and the CAT passed the order to check the family conditions and decide on the application. This order was challenged in the high court.