Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012640-012643 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 8547/2023 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative/Public-service law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that compassionate appointment is a humanitarian concession, not a vested right, and exists as an exception to general recruitment (Umesh Kumar Nagpal; Premlata). Once a dependent joins the post offered on compassionate grounds, the “right” is exercised and cannot be revisited for a higher post (Umrao Singh). Delay or laches dilutes the immediacy required for such relief, and claims based on negative discrimination (because others received greater benefits) cannot be sustained. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, High Courts |
| Persuasive For | Recruitment authorities, administrative tribunals |
| Overrules | High Court’s division-bench and review orders directing upgradation on compassionate grounds |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Compassionate appointment remains a concession, not a right; no post-appointment upgrade is permitted.
- Once a dependent accepts and joins the post offered on compassionate grounds, “endless compassion” claims for higher posts are barred.
- Delay or laches in seeking relief undermines the humanitarian immediacy—applications years after joining will likely fail.
- Negative-discrimination pleas (arguing others got higher posts) cannot cure lack of legal entitlement.
- Ignorance of eligibility for a higher post at the time of initial appointment is not an excuse for later claims.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Nature of Compassionate Appointment
- Concession on humanitarian grounds, not a vested right (Umesh Kumar Nagpal; Premlata; Somyashree).
- Exception to general recruitment; must relieve financial distress.
- Once Exercised, No Second Option
- Acceptance and joining of offered post consummates the compassionate right.
- “Endless compassion” doctrine prohibits re-opening for higher posts (Umrao Singh).
- Objective: Immediate Financial Relief
- Employment is to tide over sudden crisis; once crisis averted, no further claims.
- Delay and Laches
- Belated writ petitions dilute urgency; delay up to ten years constitutes waiver (Debabrata Tiwari; Laxmi Narayan Das).
- Negative Discrimination
- Illegality in favour of one cannot bind authority to repeat for others (Tinku; Jyostnamayee Mishra).
Arguments by the Parties
Appellants (Government Authorities)
- Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right.
- Once accepted, no entitlement to a higher post—financial crisis is resolved.
- Writ petitions were filed after inordinate delay and are time-barred.
- High Court misinterpreted Government Orders and precedent.
Respondents (Dependents)
- Initially unaware of eligibility for Junior Assistant; acted upon learning later.
- Claim parity with other similarly qualified dependents who secured higher posts.
- Delay not fatal—relief warranted to prevent discrimination and injustice.
Factual Background
After their fathers, then employed as sweepers, died in service, both dependents applied for and accepted compassionate appointments as sweepers. M. Jayabal joined in September 2012 and filed writ in April 2015; S. Veeramani joined in January 2007 and filed writ in April 2015. They later sought elevation to Junior Assistant, claiming qualifications and parity with others.
Statutory Analysis
- Only lowest cadres (Class III/IV) are envisaged for humanitarian relief.
- No statutory or policy provision allows post-appointment upgradation.
- Delay in invoking inherent writ jurisdiction under Article 226 CrPC disentitles relief once urgency is lost.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court precedents on compassionate appointment affirmed.