The Supreme Court has reiterated that a candidate seeking appointment on compassionate grounds does not have a legal right to claim a particular post. The Court dismissed an appeal filed by an individual seeking retrospective upgradation of his appointment after a delay of nearly two decades, observing that such a claim disturbs the seniority of other employees.
A Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale held that once a candidate accepts a post offered on compassionate grounds “without a demur,” their right to claim a higher post extinguishes. The Court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant for the frivolous litigation.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Tarun Gagat, sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father on February 22, 1999. On June 2, 1999, he was offered the post of ‘Forest Guard’, which he accepted. Subsequently, on July 1, 1999, the appellant submitted a representation claiming entitlement to the post of ‘Forester’ based on a clarification circular dated August 13, 1998. The circular stated that compassionate appointment should be offered at “one step lower employment,” interpreted by the appellant as “one pay scale below that of the deceased employee.”
The representation was rejected by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests on August 24, 1999. The appellant filed a statutory appeal in October 1999 but took no further legal action for nineteen years. In 2020, the appellate authority suo moto allowed his claim, granting him the post of Forester retrospectively from his initial appointment.
This retrospective upgradation was challenged by other employees (Respondents), whose seniority was adversely affected. The High Court allowed their writ petition, setting aside the upgradation order. The Division Bench of the High Court also upheld the Single Judge’s decision, noting the arbitrary exercise of power by the State.
Arguments and Proceedings
The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that under the extant policy, he was entitled to the post “one pay scale below” that of his deceased father. He contended that his statutory appeal had remained pending, justifying the delay.
The Respondents, who were the writ petitioners before the High Court, argued that they were not made parties to the appeal where the retrospective upgradation was granted, despite being necessary parties due to the impact on their seniority.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s contentions, emphasizing the settled principles regarding compassionate appointments and seniority.
- No Right to Particular Post: Citing the judgment in State of Bihar v. Samsuz Zoha (AIR 1996 SC 1961), the Court observed:
“It is trite law that a candidate who seeks appointment on compassionate ground, do not have a right to claim a particular appointment.” - Right Extinguishes Upon Acceptance: The Bench referred to State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh ((1994) 6 SCC 560), noting that once an appointment is given and accepted, the candidate’s right extinguishes. No benefit of seeking a higher post, either prospectively or retrospectively, arises thereafter.
- Delay and Laches: The Court strongly criticized the appellant’s inaction for nineteen years, stating:
“In the aforesaid background no action was taken by him or in other words, he seems to have gone into deep sleep/slumber… mere filing of an appeal, submitting of memorials or representation, would not revive the dead cause of action or keep the alleged cause of action alive and kicking.”
The Court relied on Karnataka Power Corporation v. K Thangappan and Another ((2006) 4 SCC 322) to support this proposition. - Seniority and Natural Justice: The Court affirmed the High Court’s view that the retrospective order illegally disturbed the seniority list prepared during the interregnum period. It was noted that the affected employees were neither made parties to the appeal nor heard by the appellate authority.
Decision
The Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the High Court’s decision setting aside the retrospective appointment. The Court dismissed the appeal with a cost of Rs. 10,000, to be paid to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, State of Haryana, within eight weeks.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Tarun Gagat v. Rakesh Kumar & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (@SLP (C) No. 68 of 2026)
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Coram: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
