The Supreme Court of India has held that a dependent family member of a deceased employee, once appointed on compassionate grounds, cannot subsequently claim a higher post based on their qualifications. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is a concession to help a family tide over sudden financial crisis and not a vested right to a particular position.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan set aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which had directed the State to appoint the respondents as Junior Assistants, years after they had accepted appointments as Sweepers.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Director of Town Panchayat and the District Collector, Dharmapuri, ruling that the right to compassionate appointment stands “consummated” once an offer is accepted and the candidate joins the service. The Court reiterated that such appointments are exceptions to the general rule of public employment and cannot be treated as a ladder for career advancement or an endless exercise of compassion.
Background of the Case
The case involved dependents of deceased employees who were working as Sweepers. Upon the death of their fathers, the respondents—M. Jayabal and S. Veeramani—applied for compassionate appointment and were appointed as Sweepers.
- M. Jayabal: His father died on January 29, 2011. He applied on March 15, 2012, was appointed as a Sweeper on September 6, 2012, and joined on September 11, 2012. He filed a writ petition seeking a higher post on April 19, 2015.
- S. Veeramani: His father died on October 7, 2006. He applied on December 29, 2006, was appointed as a Sweeper on January 24, 2007, and joined the same day. He also filed a writ petition on April 19, 2015.
The respondents approached the High Court years after joining service, claiming they were qualified for the post of Junior Assistant at the time of their initial appointment. The Single Judge allowed their plea, directing the appellants to issue orders for their appointment as Junior Assistants. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, prompting the State to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Submissions: Senior Advocate Mr. Jaideep Gupta, appearing for the appellants, argued that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right but a concession to save a family from destitution. He contended that once a dependent accepts a post, they cannot later turn around and claim a higher post. He further highlighted the “huge delay” in filing the writ petitions, arguing that the financial crisis, if any, was presumed to be over once the appointment was accepted.
Respondents’ Submissions: Advocate Mr. M. Purushothaman, representing the respondents, argued that the family was in crisis and accepted whatever was offered. He submitted that they were ignorant of their entitlement to the post of Junior Assistant and moved the court upon realizing that similarly situated persons had been granted higher posts. He contended that his clients should not be discriminated against.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court examined the legal principles governing compassionate appointments, referencing several precedents including Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and State of U.P. v. Premlata.
1. Compassionate Appointment is a Concession, Not a Right The Court observed that the objective of such schemes is to provide immediate relief against destitution.
“The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right… The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased,” the Bench noted.
2. Right Consummated Upon Acceptance Relying on the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, the Court held that once the option is exercised and the appointment is accepted, the right is exhausted.
“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’,” the Court observed.
3. No Claim to Higher Post The Bench clarified that eligibility for a higher post does not translate to a right to that post under compassionate schemes.
“Such appointment which is arising out of exceptional circumstances, cannot be used as a ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/she is eligible for such post,” the judgment stated.
4. Delay and Laches The Court found the delay in approaching the High Court—three years for Jayabal and nine years for Veeramani—to be fatal. Citing State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari, the Court noted that prolonged delay dilutes the sense of immediacy required for such claims.
“The delay would mean that the family could survive even after death of the employee… In such circumstances, the party approaching the court with a significant delay can be denied the relief,” Justice Bindal wrote.
5. Negative Discrimination Addressing the respondents’ argument that others were given similar benefits, the Court held that Article 14 (Right to Equality) does not envisage “negative equality.”
“No one can approach the court and base his claim on negative discrimination merely because some relief has been granted to a person who may not be entitled to the same… The Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the department while perpetuating the same,” the Bench held, citing Tinku v. State of Haryana and Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court. The writ petitions filed by M. Jayabal and S. Veeramani were dismissed. The Court concluded that the respondents’ plea of ignorance of law could not be entertained and that the High Court’s direction to appoint them to higher posts was “erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
- Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 12640-12643 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8776-8779 of 2023)
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Coram: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan
- Date of Judgment: December 12, 2025
- Counsel for Appellants: Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate
- Counsel for Respondents: Mr. M. Purushothaman, Advocate
