Persons Who Accepted Compassionate Appointment To A Post Can't Later Claim They Should've Been Given Higher Post : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 12) held that a person who has accepted a compassionate appointment cannot subsequently seek elevation by claiming that they ought to have been appointed to a higher post at the initial stage.

The Court emphasised that compassionate appointments are an exception to the normal recruitment process and are meant to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. Once an appointee accepts the post offered under the applicable scheme, they are bound by its terms and cannot later demand an appointment of higher rank on the ground that such a post should have been granted originally.

“once the right of an applicant to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further consideration is warranted. Once dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised. Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment on a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of 'endless compassion'.”, observed a bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan.

The bench allowed the appeals filed by the Tamil Nadu Director of Town Panchayat against the Madras High Court judgment that had upheld the respondents' compassionate appointments to posts higher than those permissible under the compassionate appointment scheme.

As per the scheme of the compassionate appointment, the post left vacant after the employee's death can be filled by granting a compassionate appointment to the dependent; however, a post higher than the deceased's post can't be claimed.

In this case, the deceased-employee was working on the post of a 'sweeper', therefore, his dependent was granted a compassionate appointment on the post of sweeper. However, claiming that he fulfils the eligibility and other similarly situated persons were granted higher post, the dependent approached the High Court claiming appointment to the post of 'Junior Assistant'. The Single Judge allowed his plea, whose findings remained undisturbed by the Division Bench, prompting the state authorities to move to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Bindal, relying on the case of State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560 observed that mere eligibility of an individual to be appointed on a higher post wouldn't entitle him to seek compassionate appointment on a higher post and claim seniority.

The court said that “once the right of an applicant to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further consideration is warranted. Once dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised. Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment on a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of 'endless compassion'.”

Further, the Court found the Respondents' other leg of argument that other similarly situated were granted appointment on higher posts was negatived, finding it to be a fit case of 'negative equality'. The Court said that the illegality committed by the appointment authorities in granting appointments to others on higher posts can't be perpetuated while granting compassionate appointments to the Respondents on higher posts.

“The further claim of seeking appointment on a higher post cannot be based on the sole premise that another similarly placed person was granted such benefit. It is a settled proposition of law that an illegality committed by an authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly placed persons. Thus, the contention of respondents that they may be appointed on a higher post in view of similar benefit being granted to another person is wholly misplaced and unsustainable in the eyes of law.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT & ORS. VERSUS M. JAYABAL & ANR. ETC (and connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1203

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. M.F.Philip, Adv. Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Purushotman, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Srimanta Ray, Adv. Mr. Krishna R.S.,Adv. Ms. Divya Jain, Adv.