Appointment To Higher Post On Compassionate Grounds Not Matter Of Right, Purely Discretionary Power: J&K&L High Court

The Court observed that while the rules permit the Government in the General Administration Department to appoint a dependent of a deceased employee to a higher non-gazetted post, such power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the governing rules and cannot be invoked as a matter of entitlement.

A Division Bench of Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem made these observations while allowing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Union Territory authorities and setting aside a judgment of the Single Judge which had directed that the writ petitioner be treated as having been appointed as Storekeeper from an earlier date.

Background:

The case arose after the respondent was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag, as a Storekeeper on compassionate grounds under the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 (SRO-43). However, he was not permitted to join the said post as it was a promotional post under the applicable recruitment rules, and he was instead allowed to join against a Class-IV post.

Aggrieved, the respondent approached the High Court earlier, following which the matter was considered by the Government. The Government ultimately rejected his claim for appointment to the higher post and ordered that his appointment would be treated as having been made against a Class-IV post from the date he joined service.

This decision was later challenged before the High Court, and the Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition by directing that the respondent be treated as Storekeeper from a particular date, though without monetary benefits. The State authorities challenged that decision through the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Appearing for the appellants, Mr. M. Younis, assisting counsel, argued that the respondent was not eligible for the post of Storekeeper under the recruitment rules and that the Deputy Commissioner lacked the authority to make such an appointment. It was further contended that the post of Storekeeper was a promotional post requiring specific qualifications and experience, which the respondent did not possess at the time of his initial appointment.

The appellants also argued that the learned Single Judge had passed the impugned judgment without affording the authorities an adequate opportunity to file their objections and present their stand before the Court.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Z. A. Qureshi, assisted by Advocate Anuraag Verma, appearing for the respondent, supported the judgment of the Single Judge and argued that the respondent had acquired the requisite experience and was therefore entitled to be treated as having been appointed to the post of Storekeeper.

Courts Observations:

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the Division Bench began by reiterating the principles governing compassionate appointment, referring to the Supreme Court decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premlata. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of recruitment in public service and is intended only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee.

The Court observed that the objective of such appointment is not to grant the family a particular post or confer a status equivalent to that held by the deceased employee.

In a significant observation, the Court held,

“An exception to the general rule is carved out in sub-rule (2) of Rule 3. It provides for power upon the Government in the General Administration Department, at its discretion, to appoint a family member of a deceased person to a higher post in the non-gazetted service, to which he is found eligible and qualified under the relevant rules. This power, however, is discretionary in nature. Thus, appointment to a higher post cannot be claimed as a matter of right but is strictly governed by the rules.”

The Bench noted that under SRO-43, the normal rule is that compassionate appointment may be granted only against the lowest non-gazetted or Class-IV post, subject to eligibility conditions.

The Court further held that once a person accepts appointment on compassionate grounds to a particular post, he cannot later seek appointment to a higher post on the same basis.

In this regard, the Court observed,

“It is well settled that once a person accepts an appointment on compassionate basis, he is estopped from seeking appointment on any other equivalent or higher post.”

The Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, which held that once the claim for compassionate appointment is satisfied through appointment to a post, no further claim survives.

The respondent had also argued that other similarly situated persons had been appointed to higher posts on compassionate grounds. Rejecting this contention, the Court held that illegal or irregular actions in favour of others cannot create a precedent.”Emphasizing this principle, the Court observed,

“Merely because the respondent authority has passed one illegal or unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again.”

The Division Bench held that the Single Judge had failed to consider that the post of Storekeeper was a promotional post governed by recruitment rules and subject to eligibility and seniority conditions. The respondent, therefore, could not claim the post merely because he had subsequently completed the required years of service, the court reasoned.

In view of these findings, the High Court concluded that the judgment of the Single Judge directing that the respondent be treated as Storekeeper could not be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the State authorities and set aside the impugned judgment.

Case Title: State Of J&K Vs Javaid Ahmad Ganai

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment