In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court voiced strong criticism over the increasing level of corruption across all branches of government, noting with concern that the judiciary remains helpless in eradicating it. The bench, comprising Justice R. Subramanian and Justice G. Arul Murugan, made these observations while deciding a writ appeal concerning a compassionate appointment request that had been delayed for several years.

The case involved an appellant named Gowdham, who had approached the court after his application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the National Highways Department. His father, a Record Clerk with the department, passed away while in service on October 1, 2016. At the time of his father's death, Gowdham was a minor, and only his mother, Amudha, was eligible to apply for a government job under the compassionate appointment scheme.

Read Also:- Madras High Court Permits Indu Makkal Katchi to Garland Ambedkar Statue With Strict Conditions

Amudha submitted her application on January 5, 2018. However, the department did not act on it for nearly three years. It was only on October 16, 2020, that the Divisional Engineer responded, demanding fresh documentation. These included:

• A new income certificate
• Details on how death benefits were spent
• A genuineness certificate of educational qualifications
• A family card attested by the Taluk Supply Officer

Faced with the delay and administrative burden, Amudha requested the job be granted to her son, who had by then completed the 11th standard. This request was turned down. After reaching adulthood, Gowdham filed a new application on November 19, 2022, which was again rejected for being submitted after the permissible period of three years from the date of death. His subsequent appeal in January 2023 was also dismissed.

While the learned Single Judge upheld the rejection on the basis that Gowdham attained majority beyond the stipulated time limit, the judge also pointed out that Amudha’s application had been unjustifiably delayed for nearly six years. As a result, the Judge directed the authorities to consider Amudha’s application for compassionate appointment.

Read Also:- Madras High Court Rules CENVAT Credit Cannot Be Denied Solely for Not Submitting User Test Certificate

Challenging this, Gowdham argued that he was more suitable than his mother to be appointed and referred to a Government Order—G.O.(Ms).No.33, Labour Welfare and Skill Development Department dated March 8, 2023—which grants the State the power to relax rules in hardship cases. He also emphasized that his mother had nominated him for the job back in 2020.

However, the Government Advocate countered by asserting that compassionate appointment is not a right but a scheme-based concession. He cited the Full Bench ruling in Nandini Devi and Others vs. Secretary to Government, which established that the three-year time frame is a mandatory requirement and must be strictly adhered to.

The High Court, acknowledging the Full Bench ruling, upheld the rejection of Gowdham’s application. Yet, it did not overlook the misconduct of the authorities.

"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."

The court referred to its earlier ruling in P. Pappu vs. The Sub Registrar, Rasipuram, where it recognized that obtaining government-issued certificates often involves unofficial payments.

Read Also:- Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Man, Says Helping With Job Doesn't Mean Harbouring Accused

In light of this, the bench criticized the authorities for failing to act on Amudha’s application for 34 months and directed that she be given compassionate appointment without further delay.

This ruling is a stark reminder of the bureaucratic hurdles and the reality of systemic corruption that ordinary citizens face, especially when seeking rightful benefits like compassionate appointments. While the court could not grant relief to Gowdham, it ensured justice for his mother and made a strong statement against the persistent issue of corruption in public offices.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. M. Vijayakumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. K. H. Ravikumar Govt. Advocate

Case Title: Gowdham v. The Director General and Others

Case No: W.A.No.355 of 2025