Compassionate Appointment Cannot Become a Claim for Higher Post: Supreme Court -

Shivaji Rathore 13-Dec-2025

The Supreme Court on Friday (December 12) held that a person who has accepted a compassionate appointment cannot subsequently seek elevation by claiming that he ought to have been appointed to a higher post at the initial stage.The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process, carved out only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee. Once an applicant accepts the post offered under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme, the appointment attains finality and the appointee is bound by the terms of the scheme. A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan categorically observed that seeking appointment to a higher post after accepting compassionate employment would amount to permitting “endless compassion”, which is impermissible in law.

“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’.”

Appeals by State Allowed:- The Bench allowed the appeals filed by the Director of Town Panchayat, Tamil Nadu, setting aside the judgment of the Madras High Court which had upheld compassionate appointments to posts higher than those permissible under the scheme. As per the compassionate appointment scheme, a dependent of a deceased employee may be appointed against the post vacated due to death; however, no claim can be made for appointment to a post higher than that held by the deceased employee.

Facts of the Case
In the present case, the deceased employee was working as a Sweeper. His dependent was accordingly granted compassionate appointment to the post of Sweeper. Claiming that he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for a higher post and that similarly situated persons had been granted higher appointments, the dependent approached the Madras High Court seeking appointment to the post of Junior Assistant.
The Single Judge allowed the plea, which was later affirmed by the Division Bench. Aggrieved, the State authorities approached the Supreme Court. Mere Eligibility Not a Ground for Higher Compassionate Appointment Setting aside the impugned orders, Justice Bindal, authoring the judgment, relied upon the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, (1994) 6 SCC 560 to hold that mere eligibility for a higher post does not create a right to compassionate appointment on such post, nor does it entitle the appointee to claim seniority or elevation. The Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment, but a narrowly tailored exception governed strictly by the scheme in force.

Doctrine of Negative Equality Applied:- The respondents’ argument that other similarly situated persons were granted higher posts was also rejected. The Court held that such a claim was based on the doctrine of negative equality, which has no place in constitutional jurisprudence.

“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.”

The Court clarified that an illegal benefit granted to one person cannot be used as a precedent to demand similar illegal benefits by others.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders, reaffirming that compassionate appointment schemes must be applied strictly and uniformly, without permitting post-acceptance claims for higher posts.

Cause Title

The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. etc. (and connected cases)