2025 Supreme(SC) 2040

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RAJESH BINDAL, MANMOHAN, JJ.
The Director of Town Panchayat and Others – Appellants
Versus
M. Jayabal and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12640-12643 of 2025 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8776-8779 of 2023]
WITH
The District Collector, Dharmapuri District – Appellant
Versus
M. Jayabal and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 12644-12647 of 2025 [Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8780-8783 of 2023]
Decided On : 12-12-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Compassionate Appointment – Employment on compassionate basis is provided only on account of humanitarian consideration – Such appointment which is arising 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.
(2) Delay in filing of writ petition before High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party – This principle is more applicable in the cases of compassionate appointments.
(3) Negative discrimination – Foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element of negative discrimination – No one can approach court and base his claim on negative discrimination merely because some relief has been granted to a person who may not be entitled to the same.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Dependent of a deceased employee, though eligible, is not entitled to appointment at any position on compassionate basis as a matter of right – Such appointments, made on purely humanitarian grounds, have to be viewed as exceptions to general rules of appointment – Mere eligibility of applicant cannot be reason enough to materialise his/her claim for appointment on a higher post – Once a family member of deceased employee is offered appointment on compassionate basis, purpose stands well served. (Para 7.3)

(B) Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – After death of employees in service, dependent family members were offered appointment to a post for which application was made by them – They had joined on that post without raising any objection – Financial crisis of family was over as one of dependents of deceased was offered appointment on compassionate basis in terms of policy existing at the time of consideration of their application – Once right of an applicant to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further consideration is warranted – Once dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised – Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment on a higher post – Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion’ – Compassionate appointment is a relief against immense financial hardship caused by sudden and unforeseen loss of earning member of a family – Such appointment which is arising 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 – Besides, inordinate delay on behalf of any litigant to do an act required by law shall stand in his/her way for getting relief – Delay in filing of writ petition before High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party – This principle is more applicable in cases of compassionate appointments – Impugned judgment/s of High Court set aside. (Paras 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 22, 24 and 25)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 14 – Negative discrimination – Foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of element of negative discrimination – No one can approach court and base his claim on negative discrimination merely because some relief has been granted to a person who may not be entitled to the same – Ignorance of law is not an excuse – Wrongful conferment of a right or claim on someone would not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court and nor would court be bound to accept such a plea – Respondents in present case are heirs of deceased employees who were appointed on compassionate basis upon death of their fathers – Their appointment, in its own self, was a sufficient relief to serve actual purpose behind compassionate appointments – Further claim of seeking appointment on a higher post cannot be based on sole premise that another similarly placed person was granted such benefit – Illegality committed by authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly placed persons – Illegal orders, passed in case of similarly situated person, will not confer any right upon other person to come to court and enforce the same claiming discrimination – Such plea cannot be accepted as authorities cannot be directed to perpetuate wrong committed by them – Party in such cases may have different remedies – Negative discrimination cannot be claimed if a no right can be made out as per settled position of law. (Paras 16, 18, 10 and 24)

Facts of the case:

Aggrieved against judgment of Division Bench of High Court, the present appeals have been filed. High Court vide impugned judgment has directed that the respondents herein be given appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. They were initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate basis. Impugned judgment upheld the order of Single Judge, who vide judgment dated 07.10.2016 passed in W.P Nos. 16758-16759 of 2015, directed the appellants to issue suitable orders for their appointment as Junior Assistants. They were also held entitled to receive salary for the post of a Junior Assistant from the date of the order.

Findings of Court:

Issue of discrepancies/anomalies, as were sought to be pointed out with respect to the relevant government orders, or the rights which, according to the respondents, were flowing to them on the basis of said Government Orders, is not required to be touched as, for the purpose of grant or refusal of relief to the respondents, nothing hinges on the said government orders.

Result : Appeals allowed.