Summary of this article
Accepting compassionate job ends any claim to higher posts
Scheme exists for immediate financial relief, not career advancement
Delay or parity with others cannot justify promotions
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment given on December 12, 2025, held that a dependent who accepts a job on compassionate grounds cannot later claim that they be appointed to a higher post on the ground that they were qualified for it at the time. Once the appointment is accepted, the claim comes to an end.
This order annulled the orders of the Madras High Court, which had ordered the appointment of two employees to higher posts with back wages.
Facts of the Case
The case was regarding the sons of two sweepers employed in the town panchayats in Tamil Nadu. One employee died in 2006 and the other in 2011, while in service. Thereafter, their sons applied for employment under the compassionate appointment scheme.
Both candidates applied for and accepted the appointment as sweepers. One of them joined service in 2007 and the other in 2012. At the time of the appointment, none of them raised any objection about the post offered.
Years later, after a delay of three to nine years, they approached the Madras High Court. They claimed that at the time of their initial appointment, they were qualified to be recruited as Junior Assistants. They further contended that they were not aware of their rights then, and others with similar qualifications were given higher posts on compassionate grounds.
The High Court accepted their plea and ordered their appointment as Junior Assistants with back wages. The state authorities moved the Supreme Court challenging this order.
Purpose of Compassionate Appointment
The Supreme Court explained that a compassionate appointment does not fall within the normal recruitment process. It is a limited exception to the constitutional requirement of equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.
The court added that the whole purpose of a compassionate appointment is to enable the family of a deceased employee to tide over sudden financial hardship arising from the loss of the earning member and is not intended to provide an option of post, career advancement, or future prospects.
The court explained that mere eligibility for a higher post would not confer any right to appointment on that post under compassionate grounds.
No Right to Seek Higher Post After Acceptance
The main issue before the court was whether a dependent, who has already accepted a compassionate appointment, can subsequently demand a higher position.
The Supreme Court has held that once a dependent accepts the post offered, the right stands fully exercised. The object of the scheme is achieved at that stage itself. Allowing further claims would turn compassionate appointment into what the court described as “endless compassion,” which would undermine the recruitment rules and fairness.
The court relied on earlier decisions, including Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, State of UP vs. Premlata, and Tinku vs. State of Haryana, to reiterate that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a right.
It also referred to State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh, wherein a similar claim for a higher post after accepting the lower post was rejected.
Acceptance Demonstrates Crisis Was Dealt With
In this case, both the respondents had applied for particular posts, were offered those posts, and joined service without protest. The court said this showed that the immediate financial crisis faced by the family had been resolved.
The purpose of a compassionate appointment is thus fulfilled when the family member joins the service. In other words, the same claim cannot be reopened later by asking for an appointment to a higher post on compassionate grounds.
Delay Defeats The Claim
The Supreme Court rejected the claims also on the ground of delay. The respondents approached the court after three and nine years of joining service.
The court added that a compassionate appointment is based on urgency and that if a family can manage for several years after the death of the employee, it indicates that the immediate financial hardship no longer exists. Any delay weakens the claim and shows a lack of diligence.
The court relied on the judgment of State of Orissa vs. Laxmi Narayan Das and inter alia held that the courts must be circumspect in entertaining delayed claims, particularly in cases of compassionate appointments. It also explained that ignorance of the law cannot be accepted as a valid excuse.
No Claim Based on Wrong Benefits Given to Others
They supported their contention by saying that others had been granted higher posts on compassionate grounds, and depriving them of similar treatment amounts to discrimination.
The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, holding that a claim cannot be founded on negative discrimination. If an illegal benefit was conferred on anyone else, it does not create an entitlement in others to demand the same.
It referred to Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha and ruled that, in the name of equality, the authorities cannot be directed to repeat or extend an illegality.
Financial Relief is the Only Aim
The court then reiterated that a compassionate appointment is not an alternative source of recruitment. It exists only to prevent the family of a deceased employee from falling into poverty.
It referred to Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. vs. Anusree K.B., where the Court had observed that the financial condition of the family is the relevant factor while granting compassionate appointment. Once that condition improves through employment, no further claim survives.
