Supreme Court of India
THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT & ORS.versusM. JAYABAL & ANR. ETC.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1423
- Decided
- 12 December 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- RAJESH BINDAL
Holding
Compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and once exercised it cannot be used to claim a higher post; therefore the respondents' claim fails.
Summary
The respondents, sons of sweepers who died in service, were initially appointed on compassionate basis as sweepers. After joining, they filed writ petitions seeking promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, arguing that they were qualified for the higher post at the time of their original appointment. The High Court ordered their appointment as Junior Assistants, which the appellants challenged before the Supreme Court. The Court held that compassionate appointment is a humanitarian concession, not a legal right, and once exercised it cannot be invoked again to claim a higher post. It further ruled that eligibility alone does not create a right to a higher appointment, and that the respondents' delayed claim, along with the doctrine of negative discrimination, could not be entertained. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgments and dismissed the respondents' writ petitions, allowing the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether compassionate appointment of a family member of a deceased employee is a matter of right
- Whether a dependent, after being appointed on compassionate basis, can later seek appointment to a higher post
- Whether a dependent can seek compassionate appointment to a post higher than the post held by the deceased employee
- Whether delay and laches bar the claim for a higher compassionate appointment
- Whether a claim of parity or negative discrimination can be invoked to obtain a higher post
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the compassionate appointment of a family member on account of death of an employee in service, is as a matter of right; whether the dependent family member of a deceased employee, after being appointed on a post on compassionate basis, appointment on a post higher; and whether a dependent family member of a deceased employee can seek compassionate appointment on a post higher than the post which the deceased was holding, on the ground of eligibility. Headnotes† Service law – Compassionate appointment –
Subjects
Compassionate appointmentDeath of employee in serviceCompassionate appointment to higher postSweepersJunior AssistantHumanitarian groundsFinancial crisisClaim of parityNegative discriminationPlea of ignoranceDelay and laches
Judgment
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 593 : 2025 INSC 1423
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors.
v.
M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 12640-12643 of 2025)
12 December 2025
[Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the compassionate appointment of a family
member on account of death of an employee in service, is as a
matter of right; whether the dependent family member of a deceased
employee, after being appointed on a post on compassionate basis,
can later on seek appointment on a post higher; and whether a
dependent family member of a deceased employee can seek
compassionate appointment on a post higher than the post which
the deceased was holding, on the ground of eligibility.
Headnotes†
Service law – Compassionate appointment – Appointment
to higher post – Respondents on account of death of their
fathers-working as sweepers, initially granted appointment
on compassionate basis as sweepers, for which application
was made – After few years they filed writ petitions claiming
appointment to a higher post-Junior Assistant on the ground
that they were qualified for the same at the time of the initial
appointment – Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench
of the High Court allowed the claim directing their appointment
on a higher post – Correctness:
Held: Is erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law – Dependent
of a deceased employee, though eligible, not entitled to appointment
at any position on compassionate basis as a matter of right –
Such appointments, made on purely humanitarian grounds, to be
viewed as exceptions to the general rules of appointment – Mere
eligibility of the applicant cannot be reason enough to materialise
his/her claim for appointment on a higher post – Once a family
member of the deceased employee was offered appointment on
compassionate basis, the financial crisis of the family was over –
Once the right of an applicant to be considered for appointment
* Author
594 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further
consideration warranted, his right stood exercised – Right once
exercised could not be permitted to be exercised again and
again by making it an endless exercise – Otherwise, it would
be a case of ‘endless compassion’ – Such appointment 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 of eligibility – Respondents approached the Court belated
after they had joined on the post on compassionate basis, as
such claim to be rejected – Also claim of parity with another
employee who had been granted similar benefit, misplaced since
no one can approach the 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 – Foundation of any
claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element of negative
discrimination – Illegality committed by an authority cannot be
validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly
placed persons – Such illegal orders, will not confer any right
upon the other person to come to the court and enforce the same
claiming discrimination – Plea of ignorance by the respondent of
seeking appointment on a higher post and that a similar relief
having been granted to others, the respondents should not be
discriminated against, cannot be entertained – Ignorance of law
is not an excuse – Negative discrimination cannot be claimed
if no right can be made out – Impugned judgment set aside.
[Paras 7.3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-24]
Case Law Cited
I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 INSC 496 : [2007]
5 SCR 978 : (2007) 6 SCC 162; State of U.P. v. Premlata, 2021
INSC 619 : [2021] 8 SCR 597 : (2022) 1 SCC 30; State of W.B. v.
Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 INSC 202 : [2023] 2 SCR 611 : (2025)
5 SCC 712; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors.,
1994 INSC 189 : [1994] 3 SCR 893: (1994) 4 SCC 138; Tinku v.
State of Haryana & Ors., 2024 INSC 867 : [2024] 11 SCR 713 :
2024 SCC Online SC 3292; State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh,
1994 INSC 423 : [1994] Supp. 4 SCR 67 : (1994) 6 SCC 560;
State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 INSC 619 : [2023] 10
SCR 1049 : (2023) 15 SCC 273; Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of
Odisha, 2025 INSC 87 : [2025] 1 SCR 834 : 2025 SCC Online SC
117; Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. v. Anusree
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 595
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
K.B., 2022 INSC 1051 : [2022] 7 SCR 267 : 2022 SCC Online
SC 1331 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment; Death of employee in service;
Compassionate appointment to higher post; Sweepers; Junior
Assistant; Humanitarian grounds; Financial crisis; Claim of parity;
Negative discrimination; Plea of ignorance; Delay and laches.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 12640-
12643 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.07.2018 and 31.01.2023
of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WA Nos. 778 and 779
of 2017 and RA Nos. 69 and 70 of 2022, respectively
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 12644-12647 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., Ms. Purnima Krishna, M.F.Philip,
Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin M. Babichen, Ms. Racheeta Chawla,
Ms. G. Indira.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
M. Purushotman, Nikhil Jain, Srimanta Ray, Krishna R.S.,
Ms. Divya Jain.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1. This order will dispose of eight appeals which arise out of a common
judgment1 of the High Court2 and order3 passed in the subsequent
review applications.
1 Dated 03.07.2018 in W.A.Nos.778 and 779 of 2017
2 High Court of Judicature at Madras
3 Dated 31.01.2023 in Review Application Nos.69 and 70 of 2022
596 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
2. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court, the present appeals have been filed. The 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. The impugned
judgment upheld the order of the learned 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. The respondents herein, on account of death of their fathers,
who were working as sweepers, were initially granted appointment on
compassionate basis as sweepers. It was in terms of the applications
made by them. After huge delay, they preferred writ petitions claiming
appointment to a higher post namely Junior Assistant raising the
plea that they were qualified for the same at the time of the initial
appointment. Learned Single Judge allowed the claim. The order was
then upheld by the Division Bench and the applications for review
were also dismissed. The aforesaid orders are under challenge in
the present appeals.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS
3. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court
deserves to be set aside on more than one grounds. He submitted
that appointment on compassionate basis is not a matter of right
rather a concession given to the family members of a deceased
employee to enable them to come out of sudden financial crisis.
Once a dependent family member of a deceased has been offered
appointment on a particular post and he has accepted the same, he
cannot, later on, turn around and claim that he is entitled to a higher
post on account of his better qualifications. At that stage the family
cannot be said to be in financial crisis. Even otherwise, option once
exercised by the family member of the deceased employee cannot
be allowed to be exercised again once the earlier option fructified
into employment to a post on which the person concerned had joined
and had been working.
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 597
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
3.1 There was huge delay in filing of writ petition4 by the respondents.
Hence, on that ground also the respondents deserved to be
non-suited.
3.2 It was further submitted that the Government Orders have been
wrongly interpreted by the High Court while granting relief to
the respondents.
3.3 In support of the arguments, reliance has been placed upon
the judgments of this Court in I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani
Tripathi5, State of U.P. v. Premlata6 and State of W.B. v.
Debabrata Tiwari7.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. In response, Mr. M. Purushothaman, learned counsel for the
respondents, submitted that the relief which has been granted to
them by the High Court does not call for interference by this Court
as it pertains to employment to the member of a family which was
in crisis. There is no mis-interpretation of the Government Orders.
In fact, at the initial stage when the respondents accepted the
employment offer, they did not know that they were entitled to the
post of Junior Assistant, hence could not make a request for the
same. The moment they came to know that other similarly situated
persons had been given employment on the higher post, keeping in
view their qualifications, they immediately took up the issue. There was
no delay in the process. The respondents could not be discriminated.
Considering the kind of qualification that the respondents possess,
they should not be made to work on Class IV post especially when
the Government Orders permit their employment on compassionate
basis on a higher post. That being the case, there is no merit in the
present appeals and the same deserve to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
4 W.P. No.16759 of 2015
5 2007 INSC 496 : (2007) 6 SCC 162
6 2021 INSC 619 : (2022) 1 SCC 30
7 2023 INSC 202 : (2025) 5 SCC 712
598 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6. The following table shows in brief the post on which the deceased
employees were working, date of their death, the post for which
their dependent/s applied, the date on which the employment was
offered and the post that was offered, the date of joining thereon
along with the date of filing of the writ petition, seeking appointment
on a higher post.
Details M. Jayabal S. Veeramani
Father’s post Sweeper Sweeper
Date of Father’s death 29.01.2011 07.10.2006
Date of application 15.03.2012 29.12.2006
Date of appointment 06.09.2012 24.01.2007
P o s t o n w h i c h Sweeper Sweeper
appointment was made
Date of joining 11.09.2012 24.01.2007
Date of filing of W.P. 19.04.2015 19.04.2015
WHETHER COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
IS A MATTER OF RIGHT ?
7. First and the foremost issue which requires consideration by
this Court in the present appeals is whether the compassionate
appointment of a family member on account of death of an employee
in service, is as a matter of right or not. The issue stands settled in
an authoritative judgment of this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal
vs. State of Haryana & Ors.8 It was opined therein that the core
objective behind granting compassionate employment is to enable
the family to tide over sudden financial crisis and such favourable
treatment that is given to the dependant of the deceased employee
is a relief against destitution. It is totally on humanitarian grounds.
The relevant paragraphs in are extracted below:
“2………..One such exception is in favour of the dependants
of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family
in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such
8 1994 INSC 189 : (1994) 4 SCC 138
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 599
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood
is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends
meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the deceased
who may be eligible for such employment. The whole
object of granting compassionate employment is thus to
enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object
is not to give a member of such family a post much less
a post for post held by the deceased. What is further,
mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle
his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or
the public authority concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it
is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the
family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to
be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts
in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual
and manual categories and hence they alone can be
offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help
it get over the emergency. The provision of employment
in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule
is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favourable treatment given to such dependant of the
deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be
given by the public authorities for the purpose….”
(emphasis supplied)
7.1 In the Premlata’s case (supra), this court analysed the
nature of appointment made on compassionate basis and
opined that the same is an exception to the general rule of
appointment in the public services. The aspirant has no right to
compassionate appointment. It was clarified that the appointment
on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“8. While considering the issue involved in the
present appeal, the law laid down by this Court
600 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on compassionate ground on the death of the
deceased employee are required to be referred to
and considered. In the recent decision, this Court
in State of Karnataka v. V. Somyashree [State of
Karnataka v. V. Somyashree, (2021) 12 SCC 20 :
2021 SCC OnLine SC 704] , had occasion to consider
the principle governing the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground. After referring to the decision
of this Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka
[N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7
SCC 617 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 861] , this Court
has 10ummarized the principle governing the grant
of appointment on compassionate ground as under
: (V. Somyashree case [State of Karnataka v. V.
Somyashree, (2021) 12 SCC 20 : 2021 SCC OnLine
SC 704] , SCC para 10)
“10.1. That the compassionate appointment is
an exception to the general rule.
10.2. That no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment.
10.3. The appointment to any public post in the
service of the State has to be made on the basis
of the principle in accordance with Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10.4. Appointment on compassionate ground
can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid
down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction
of the eligibility criteria as per the policy.
10.5. The norms prevailing on the date of
the consideration of the application should
be the basis for consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment.”
9. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of
decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground,
for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should
be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment
on compassionate ground offered to a dependant of a
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 601
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
deceased employee is an exception to the said norms.
The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
(emphasis supplied)
10. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule of appointment in the public
services and is in favour of the dependants of a deceased
dying-in-harness and leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of
pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration
the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment
to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such
family a post much less a post held by the deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)
7.2 Later, similar view was expressed by a Three-Judge Bench of
this Court in Tinku vs. State of Haryana & Ors.9. The relevant
paragraph is extracted below:
“12. As regards the compassionate appointment
being sought to be claimed as a vested right for
appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is
not a condition of service of an employee who dies
in harness, which must be given to the dependent
without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process
of selection. It is an appointment which is given on
proper and strict scrutiny of the various parameters
as laid down with an intention to help a family out
of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it
get out of the emerging urgent situation where the
sole bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless
and maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment
9 2024 INSC 867 : 2024 SCC Online SC 3292
602 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
is, therefore, provided to bail out a family of the
deceased employee facing extreme financial difficulty
and but for the employment, the family will not be
able to meet the crisis. This shall in any case be
subject to the claimant fulfilling the requirements as
laid down in the policy, instructions, or rules for such
a compassionate appointment.”
7.3 Applying the above principles of law, it can be concluded that
the 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
the general rules of appointment. It is important to note that
mere eligibility of the applicant cannot be reason enough to
materialise his/her claim for appointment on a higher post.
Once a family member of the deceased employee is offered
appointment on compassionate basis, the purpose stands well
served. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that they
are entitled to be reconsidered for further appointment on a
higher post is not maintainable.
CLAIM FOR HIGHER POST
8. It is not in dispute that after the death of the employees in service,
the dependent family members were offered appointment to a post for
which an application was made by them. They had joined on that post
without raising any objection. Meaning thereby, the financial crisis of
the family was over as one of the dependents of the deceased was
offered appointment on compassionate basis in terms of the policy
existing at the time of consideration of their application.
8.1 The next issue which requires consideration by this Court is
whether the dependent family member of a deceased employee,
after being appointed on a post on compassionate basis, can
later on seek indulgence of the employer to appoint him on a
higher post.
9. The law on the issue is well-settled. The issue as to whether a
second option can be exercised by the dependent family member of
the deceased employee, once option for compassionate appointment
has already been exercised and the dependent family member of the
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 603
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
deceased joined on the post to which appointment was given, was
considered by this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh10.
In this case, the deceased was working as Sub-Inspector, CID. On
account of his death during service, application for appointment
on compassionate basis was made. The dependant was offered
appointment on the post of L.D.C. The same was accepted and the
incumbent joined on the post. Later, he requested for consideration
of his case for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, being
eligible for the same. This Court negated the claim holding that once
right for consideration for appointment on compassionate post was
consummated, any further or second consideration for a higher post
on the ground of compassion would not arise. The relevant paragraph
8 is extracted below:
“8. Admittedly the respondent’s father died in harness
while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch)
on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an application on
8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground
as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of
vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed
to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He
accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right
to be considered for the appointment on compassionate
ground was consummated. No further consideration on
compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it
would be a case of “endless compassion”. Eligibility to
be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the
process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because
of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be
issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no
application to the facts of this case.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. In view of the law laid down by this Court, it stands clarified that
the once the 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
10 1994 INSC 423 : (1994) 6 SCC 560
604 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
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’.
WHETHER THE DEPENDANT OF A DECEASED EMPLOYEE
CAN SEEK EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE BASIS ON A
HIGHER POST ?
11. This Court has also opined on the issue whether a dependent
family member of a deceased employee can seek compassionate
appointment on a post higher than the post which the deceased was
holding, merely on the ground that he fulfils the criteria of such higher
post. The opinion expressed is that the same will run contrary to the
very object of grant of compassionate appointment, which is provided
to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden
financial crisis. Employment on compassionate basis is provided only
on account of humanitarian consideration. Relevant paragraph of
the judgment of this Court in Premlata (Supra) is extracted below:
“10.2 In a given case, it may happen that the dependant of
the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on
compassionate ground is having the educational qualification
of Class II or Class I post and the deceased employee
was working on the post of Class/Grade IV and/or lower
than the post applied, in that case the dependant/applicant
cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground
on the higher post than what was held by the deceased
employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she
is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post.
The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose
of grant of appointment on compassionate ground which
as observed hereinabove is to enable the family to tide
over the sudden crisis on the death of the breadearner. As
observed above, appointment on compassionate ground
is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking
into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood is
provided and family would be able to make both ends meet.”
12. Keeping in view the core objective behind appointment on
compassionate basis, as has been discussed in a catena of judgments
of this Court, it is well settled that compassionate appointment is a
relief against immense financial hardship caused by the sudden and
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 605
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
unforeseen loss of the earning member of a family. In such event, when
a dependant family member of the deceased employee is provided
appointment on compassionate basis, it is done in order to ensure that
the family members are not subjected to impoverishment. Therefore,
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.
DELAY AND LACHES
13. The claim of the respondents/M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani also
deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches as has been
noticed in the previous part of the judgment. Both the respondents
had approached the Court belated after they had joined on the post
they were offered appointment on compassionate basis. Reference
for this purpose can be made to the judgment of this Court in State
of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das11 wherein it was held that delay
reflects the indolence of a litigant and the Court must scrutinise
whether such belated lis must be entertained or not. Therefore,
inordinate delay on behalf of any litigant to do an act required by
law shall stand in his/her way for getting relief.
14. This Court in Debabrata Tiwari’s case (supra) has opined that in
a case where the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds
is belated, for reasons of prolonged delay, the sense of immediacy
is diluted and lost. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“35. Considering the second question referred to above,
in the first instance, regarding whether applications for
compassionate appointment could be considered after a
delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case
where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part
of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment
or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense
of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial
circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have
changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the
government employee.
xxx xxx xxx
11 2023 INSC 619 : (2023) 15 SCC 273
606 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present
case, we hold that the respondent-writ petitioners, upon
submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did
nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e. for
a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach
of the authorities of the appellant State in dealing with
their applications, the respondent-writ petitioners delayed
approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of
a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact,
such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may
even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible
by the conduct of the respondent-writ petitioners. Such a
delay would disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
15. It is a settled principle of law that delay in filing of writ petition before
the High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party. This principle
is more applicable in the cases of compassionate appointments.
The idea behind compassionate appointment is to take care of
immediate financial crisis in the family of the deceased employee.
In such case, the delay would mean that the family could survive
even after death of the employee, as they may be having another
source of income. In such circumstances, the party approaching the
court with a significant delay can be denied the relief.
NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION
16. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the respondents/M.
Jayabal & S. Veeramani was to claim parity with another employee
who had been granted similar benefit. The law on the subject is
well-settled. No one can approach the 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. This Court
in Tinku’s case (supra) opined that 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 the court be bound to accept such a
plea. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
“11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article 14 is
a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can be
invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No
direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 607
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in favour
of a person, an individual, or even a group of individuals
which is contrary to the policy or instructions applicable.
Similarly, passing of an illegal order wrongfully conferring
some right or claim on someone does not entitle a similar
claim to be put forth before a court nor would court be
bound to accept such plea. The court will not compel the
authority to repeat that illegality over again. If such claims
are entertained and directions issued, that would not only
be against the tenets of the justice but would negate its
ethos resulting in the law being a causality culminating
in anarchy and lawlessness. The Court cannot ignore
the law, nor can it overlook the same to confer a right or
a claim that does not have legal sanction. Equity cannot
be extended, and that too negative to confer a benefit or
advantage without legal basis or justification.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Reference for the purpose can also be made to the judgment of this
Court in Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha12. The relevant
extract is reproduced herein below:
“31. Another argument was raised while referring to two
communications dated 28.06.1999 appointing Ms. Jhina
Rani Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer on
promotion, claiming to be from the post of Peon, on the
basis of which the petitioner is claiming violation of Article
14, namely the discrimination. Suffice to add, this Court
cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by the
department while perpetuating the same. A litigant coming
to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination seeking
direction from the Court to the department to act in violation
of the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled proposition of
law that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality.
Reference for the purpose can be made to a judgment
of this Court in R. Muthukumar v. The Chairman and
Managing Director TANGEDCO. Relevant para thereof
is extracted below:
12 2025 INSC 87 : 2025 SCC Online SC 117
608 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
“28. A principle, axiomatic in this country’s constitutional
lore is that there is no negative equality. In other words,
if there has been a benefit or advantage conferred
on one or a set of people, without legal basis or
justification, that benefit cannot multiply, or be relied
upon as a principle of parity or equality. In Basawaraj
v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, this court ruled that:
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14
of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate
illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong
decisions made in other cases. The said
provision does not envisage negative equality
but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some
other similarly situated persons have been
granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by
mistake, such an order does not confer any
legal right on others to get the same relief as
well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case,
it cannot be perpetuated.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. From the position of law as enunciated above, it is evident that the
foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of the
element of negative discrimination. The respondents in the present
case are heirs of the deceased employees who were appointed
on 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 further claim of
seeking appointment on a higher post cannot be based on the sole
premise that another similarly placed person was granted such
benefit. It is a settled proposition of law that an illegality committed
by an authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its
extension to other similarly placed persons. Thus, the contention of
respondents that they may be appointed on a higher post in view of
similar benefit being granted to another person is wholly misplaced
and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
19. From the law on the issue which we have referred to in the aforesaid
paragraphs, it is clearly culled out that illegal orders, passed in
case of similarly situated person, will not confer any right upon the
other person to come to the court and enforce the same claiming
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 609
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
discrimination. Such plea cannot be accepted as the authorities
cannot be directed to perpetuate the wrong committed by them.
The party in such cases may have different remedies. We are not
dilating on the same.
FACTS OF THE CASE
20. With reference to the above enunciation of law, if the facts of the case
are considered, M. Jayabal, respondent No.1 in C.A. No.12640 of
2025 was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Sweeper,
for which he applied and after joining and working on that post, he
applied for a higher post after a gap of three years. Similarly, in the
case of S. Veeramani, respondent No.1 in C.A. No.12641 of 2025
who was also appointed on compassionate basis on the post of
Sweeper, for which he applied and after joining and working on that
post, he has applied for the higher post after a gap of nine years.
21. From the aforesaid facts, it is established that the respondents/M.
Jayabal & S. Veeramani 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. After they
had joined on the post offered to them on compassionate basis,
consideration of their prayer for the same stood consummated. The
families of both the respondents were no more in financial distress.
The right once exercised could not be permitted to be exercised again
and again by making it an endless exercise. An applicant for the
post on compassionate basis may be eligible for any higher post but
that does not mean he has right to be appointed on that post. This
depends on the rules and the policy applicable and also the number
of vacancies to be offered in that category. In fact, this is not an
additional source of recruitment, rather an exception to the general rule
of providing equal opportunities to all for recruitment in government
jobs. This Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.
& Ors. vs. Anusree K.B.13 has held that for consideration of an
application for appointment on compassionate basis, financial status
of the family is also a relevant factor. It is not a matter of selection
or choice of an applicant for such a post, rather for the employer
to consider various factors. The basic idea is to provide succour to
the family to enable them to come out of immediate financial crisis.
13 2022 INSC 1051 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1331
610 [2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment has
also been held to be fatal for the exercise of such a right.
22. If the facts of the case in hand are considered, in our view, belated
applications made by the respondents seeking appointment on a
higher post, after they had already been appointed on a lower post,
was rightly rejected by the competent authority. The view expressed
by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court
directing their appointment on a higher post w.e.f the date of judgement
was certainly erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law laid down
by this Court on the subject.
23. In our view, the 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 the 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.
24. The only plea raised by the respondents/M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani
for seeking appointment on a higher post was that they were ignorant
about their right for such appointment, initially, on a higher post and
that a similar relief having been granted to others, the respondents
should not be discriminated against. It is well-settled that ignorance
of law is not an excuse, as a result of which, such plea raised by the
respondents cannot be entertained. Further, negative discrimination
cannot be claimed if a no right can be made out as per the settled
position of law.
25. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the present
appeals. The same are accordingly allowed and the impugned
judgment/s of the High Court are set aside. Resultantly, W.P.No.16759
of 2015 filed by respondent/M. Jayabal and W.P. No 16758 of 2015
filed by respondent/S. Veeramani before the High Court are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Compassionate appointment"Sign in to search