Does appointment on compassionate grounds have a right to a higher post: Know what court ruling says

Court

• Supreme Court: No higher post claim after accepting compassionate appointment
• Original appointments of Jayabal and Veeramani as sweepers restored
• Ruling aims to prevent endless litigation and uphold recruitment norms

Did our AI summary help?

In a ruling delivered on December 12, 2025, the Supreme Court made it clear that a dependent who takes up employment on compassionate grounds cannot subsequently seek a higher position by citing their educational qualifications at the time of appointment. The court said that acceptance of the post closes the matter, leaving no scope for later claims.

What is the case?

The Director of Town Panchayat challenged the Common Judgment dated July 03, 2018 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A No. 778 and 779 of 2017 and the order dated January 31, 2023 passed by the High Court in Review Application No. 69 and 70 of 2022. The High Court by the Judgment dated July, 03, 2018 upheld the Judgment dated October 07, 2016, whereby the Single Judge Bench directed the Appellant to issue orders in favour of the Respondents namely M. Jayabal and S. Veeramani (Respondents) for their appointment as Junior Assistants and by Order dated January 31, 2023, the High Court dismissed the review application filed by the Appellant.

The dispute traces back to two sanitation workers employed by town panchayats in Tamil Nadu, both of whom died while in service—one in 2006 and the other in 2011. After their deaths, their M. Jayabal and S. Veeramani sought jobs under the state’s compassionate appointment policy, which is meant to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families.

The authorities offered both applicants positions as sweepers. They accepted the appointments without protest and joined service—one joined in 2007 and the other in 2012.

It was only years later that the issue resurfaced. After remaining in service for periods ranging from three to nine years, the two men approached the Madras High Court. They argued that they held the educational qualifications required for the post of Junior Assistant at the time of their appointments but had taken up the lower posts without realising they could be considered for higher roles. They also pointed to instances where similarly qualified candidates had been appointed to better positions on compassionate grounds.

The High Court agreed with their submissions and directed the state to appoint them as Junior Assistants, along with payment of back wages. The Tamil Nadu government has since challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that once a dependent voluntarily accepts a compassionate appointment, the claim is fully consummated. Entertaining subsequent claims would result in “endless compassion,” undermining recruitment norms. Delay, ignorance of law, or comparison with irregular benefits granted to others cannot justify higher appointments. The original appointments were therefore restored.

No right to seek higher position after accepting job

The Supreme Court held that once Respondents accepted the offered post for which they had applied, they could not be permitted to exercise their right again and again by making it an endless exercise.

“The Supreme Court further held that an applicant for the post on a compassionate basis may be eligible for any higher post, but that does not mean he has the right to be appointed to that post. The Supreme Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the said Judgment and Order by holding that the competent authority rightly rejected the belated applications filed by the Respondents as their appointment on compassionate post was consummated, the families of both the respondents were no more in financial distress and the Respondents cannot claim negative discrimination,” said Ajay Sharma- Advocate, High Court of Delhi.

“The ruling significantly curtails post-acceptance litigation, preserves the integrity of public recruitment processes, and ensures that compassionate appointment schemes remain finite, policy-driven, and aligned with constitutional principles of equality and fairness,” said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.