The Supreme Court held that once a dependent of a deceased employee accepts compassionate appointment, the right stands exhausted, and the appointee cannot later demand transfer or appointment to a higher post in public employment under service law.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court determined that once a dependent of a deceased employee accepts a position on compassionate grounds, they cannot later seek a transfer to a higher post.
Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan made this ruling in a case involving two individuals who were appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds but later claimed they should have been designated as Junior Assistants instead.
They argued that they only later learned that they qualified for higher positions. However, the Court dismissed this argument and upheld an appeal from the Tamil Nadu government.
The Court stated that allowing such claims would lead to a state of “endless compassion.”
It emphasized,
“Once a dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised. Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment to a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion.’”
Additionally, the Court reiterated that a dependent appointed on compassionate grounds cannot claim a right to a higher position simply because they meet the qualifications.
It remarked,
“An applicant for the post on compassionate basis may be eligible for any higher post, but that does not mean he has the right to be appointed on that post.”
The Court clarified that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the usual rules of public employment and should not be regarded as a pathway for career advancement.
It stated,
“Such appointment, which arises 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.”
In this context, the Court reviewed appeals from local authorities in Tamil Nadu against a ruling by the Madras High Court that required M. Jayabal and S. Veeramani (the respondents) to be appointed as Junior Assistants, even though they had previously accepted jobs as sweepers on compassionate grounds.
The Court noted that the respondents had applied for a specific role, received offers for that role on compassionate grounds, and accepted the positions without protest. It ruled that once such an appointment is accepted, the purpose of compassionate appointment is fulfilled, and the right cannot be repeatedly invoked.
It added that the families of both respondents were no longer facing financial hardships, indicating that their claim should not be entertained indefinitely.
The Court concluded,
“The right once exercised could not be permitted to be exercised again and again by making it an endless exercise,”
Also Read: Centre Announced New Judicial Appointments for High Courts
The Court also rejected the argument that the respondents were unaware they could have applied for higher posts earlier, stating,
“It is well-settled that ignorance of law is not an excuse,”
Thus rendering their plea inadmissible. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted the appeals and overturned the Madras High Court’s ruling.
Case Title: Director of Town Panchayat v. M Jayabal and anr
Read Attachment