Compassionate Appointment Once Made Bars Claim to Higher Post | SC

Case Details: Director of Town Panchayat vs. M. Jayabal - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 505 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rajesh Bindal & Manmohan, JJ.
• Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ms Purnima Krishna, Ms G. Indira, Aors, M. F. Philip, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin M. Babichen & Ms Racheeta Chawla, Advs. for the Appellant.
• M. Purushotman, Prafull Singh Chandel, Anirudh Sharma, Srimanta Ray, Ms Divya Jain, Advs. & Nikhil Jain, Aor for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondents, on account of the death of their fathers, who were working as sweepers, were initially appointed on a compassionate basis as sweepers. After a long delay, they filed writ petitions claiming appointment to a higher post, namely Junior Assistant, on the ground that they were qualified for it at the time of their initial appointment.

The Single Judge allowed the claim. The Division Bench of the High Court then upheld the order. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that once dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised and thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment on a higher post.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that since respondents were heirs of deceased employees who were appointed on a compassionate basis upon the death of their fathers, their appointment, in its own self, was a sufficient relief to serve the actual purpose behind compassionate appointments.

The Supreme Court held that since respondents had applied for a particular post and their prayer was accepted, as a result of which they were offered appointment on the post for which they had applied, consideration of their prayer for the same stood consummated, and the families of both respondents were no longer in financial distress.

Therefore, belated applications made by respondents seeking appointment on a higher post, after they had already been appointed on a lower post, were rightly rejected by the competent authority, and thus, the impugned order of the High Court was to be set aside.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu v. M.Jayabal [W.P. No. WA-778 and 779 of 2017], dated 03-07-2018 (para 25) set aside
• Tinku v. State of Haryana [2025] 11 taxmann.com 1281 (SC) (para 7.3) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• S.Veeramani v. Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu [W.P. No. 16758 of 2015, dated 7-10-2016] (para 2)
• I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi 2007 taxmann.com 2319 (SC) (para 3.3)
• State of U.P. v. Premlata [2022] 10 taxmann.com 1863 (SC) (para 3.3)
• State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari [2023] 3 taxmann.com 2168 (SC) (para 3.3)
• Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 taxmann.com 2427 (SC) (para 7)
• Tinku v. State of Haryana [2025] 11 taxmann.com 1281 (SC) (para 7.2)
• State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh (1994) 6 SCC 560 (para 9)
• State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das (2023) 15 SCC 273 (para 13)
• Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha 2025 SCC Online SC 117 (para 17)
• Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. v. Anusree K.B. [2022] 9 taxmann.com 1462 (SC) (para 21).