K.Madhumathy v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR K.Madhumathy W/o.Late.Kanagasabapathi ..Petitioner Vs

1. Union of India, represented by Chief Post Master General, Anna Salai, Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002.

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City Central Division, No.2 Sivagnanam Street, Pondy Bazaar, Parthasarathipuram, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

3. The Post Master General, Southern Region, Krishnapuram Colony, Vishwanathapram, Madurai District - 624 014.

4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Madurai Division, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai District - 625 002.

5. The Inspector of Posts, Sholavaram Sub Division, Vadipatti, Madurai - 625 218.

6. P.Darwin H/o.Late.M.K.Dharani ..Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order passed in O.A.No.601 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025 on the file of the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai - 600 104 and quash the same and consequently direct fourth respondent to cancel the provisional appointment issued in favour of the sixth respondent appointing him as ABPM-II within a time frame fixed by this Court.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.N.Ravichandran For Respondents :

No appearance [R1 to R5] Mr.Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan [R6] *****

ORDER

(Made by S.M.Subramaniam J.) The present writ petition has been instituted challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, dated 01.07.2025 passed in O.A.No.601 of 2025.

2. The original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal is the writ petitioner before this Court. The daughter of the writ petitioner late Dharani was employed in postal department and died while she was in service. The husband of the deceased employee submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment. The Department of Posts considered

the application submitted by sixth respondent/husband of the deceased employee and appointed him as ABPM-II Karumathur with effect from 14.11.2023. As such, the sixth respondent is continuing as an employee in Department of Posts.

3. The writ petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the sixth respondent, submitted a representation to the authorities stating that the sixth respondent suppressed certain facts and secured appointment on compassionate grounds. He was gainfully employed and the said fact was suppressed and therefore, his appointment is to be cancelled. The authorities considered the representation/complaint given by the writ petitioner and issued a reply vide proceedings dated 21.03.2025 as follows:

"(i) As per 3(ii) of the Directorate OM No.17-01/2017-GDS dated 14.06.2023, "First priority will be given to spouse of the deceased GDS. In such cases, consent of the spouse will only be taken." Hence, the compassionate request of Shri.P.Darwin was considered and approved.

(ii) Further the parents of the deceased GDS does not come under the "Dependent Family Member" as per Rule 2 of Directorate OM No.17-01/2017-GDS dated 14.06.2023."

4. Not satisfied with the reply given by the department, the writ petitioner filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal elaborately considered the factual position as well as the legal principles and made a finding that the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file the original application. The writ petitioner failed to establish what legal injury she has suffered in the absence of any legal right. The writ

petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased employee, is not entitled to avail the benefit of compassionate appointment scheme. Therefore, she cannot be construed as an aggrieved person.

5. Regarding the complaint given by the writ petitioner, the Central Administrative Tribunal made a finding that no iota of evidence produced by the writ petitioner before the Court regarding the previous employment of the sixth respondent. That apart, all those factual particulars produced by the sixth respondent along with the application seeking compassionate appointment were considered by the department and an appointment order was issued in proceedings dated 02.12.2023. Based on the said position, the original application came to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner reiterated the said grounds by stating that the sixth respondent was gainfully employed at the time of submission of application seeking compassionate appointment. In any event, the writ petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment under the scheme. That apart, the Tribunal found that no evidence has been produced by the writ petitioner to establish that the sixth respondent was employed previously. The department has rightly given compassionate appointment to the husband of the deceased employee, which is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the scheme. Thus, the writ petitioner has not established even a semblance of legal right for considering the relief.

Accordingly, the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 01.07.2025 passed in O.A.No.601 of 2025 stands confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

(S.M.S.,J.) (N.S.,J.) 11-06-2026 Index: Yes Speaking Order gm To

1. The Chief Post Master General, Anna Salai, Chintadripet, Chennai - 600 002.

2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Chennai City Central Division, No.2 Sivagnanam Street, Pondy Bazaar, Parthasarathipuram, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

3. The Post Master General, Southern Region, Krishnapuram Colony, Vishwanathapram, Madurai District - 624 014.

4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Department of Posts, Madurai Division, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai District - 625 002.

5. The Inspector of Posts, Sholavaram Sub Division, Vadipatti, Madurai - 625 218.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

AND N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

gm 11-06-2026