Those Who Accept Compassionate Appointment Cannot Later Claim Higher Post: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that a person who accepts compassionate appointment cannot later demand a higher post as a matter of right, reiterating that compassionate employment is a limited exception meant for immediate financial relief and cannot override regular recruitment rules under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
New Delhi:(Director of Town Panchayat v. M Jayabal and anr) The Supreme Court of India has reiterated that an employee who accepts a job on compassionate grounds cannot later claim appointment to a higher post as a matter of right. The Court held that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal rule of public employment and is meant only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose when an individual, after accepting appointment on compassionate grounds to a lower post, later sought placement in a higher position by citing eligibility and qualifications. The employer rejected the request, leading to litigation that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Findings
The Supreme Court observed that:
- Compassionate appointment is a concession and not an enforceable right.
- Once a candidate accepts compassionate appointment, it amounts to acceptance of the terms and conditions of the scheme and the post offered.
- Allowing claims for higher posts after acceptance would undermine the purpose of compassionate appointment and conflict with the constitutional principles of equality in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.
Relevant Legal Principle
The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment schemes must be applied strictly and cannot become an alternative route for recruitment or career progression. The object remains limited to addressing sudden financial hardship caused by the death of the earning member.
Relevant Case Law
- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 – The Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is intended to meet immediate financial crisis and cannot be treated as a regular mode of recruitment.
- Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar (2015) 7 SCC 412 – The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment must strictly follow the governing policy and cannot be claimed as a matter of entitlement.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 – The Court held that compassionate employment does not confer a right beyond the terms of the applicable scheme.
Legal Significance
The ruling reinforces that compassionate appointment remains a narrowly tailored humanitarian measure and cannot be expanded to grant preferential elevation to higher posts outside the regular recruitment process.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.