New Delhi: The Supreme Court has ruled that once a dependent of a deceased employee is given a job on compassionate grounds, their entitlement is fulfilled. They cannot subsequently demand appointment to a higher post. The court stated, “Otherwise, it would become a case of ‘never-ending compassion’.”
A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan said that “a right once exercised cannot be allowed to be exercised repeatedly.” The bench noted that in this case, the petitioners were the heirs of deceased employees who had been appointed on compassionate grounds after their fathers’ deaths.
In its judgment delivered on December 12, the bench stated, “Their appointment itself was sufficient relief to fulfill the true purpose behind compassionate appointments. A further demand for appointment to a higher post cannot be made merely on the ground that some other similarly situated person had received that benefit. It is a settled principle of law that a mistake committed by an authority cannot be legitimized or extended further to other similarly situated persons.”
A lawyer appearing for the Tamil Nadu administration argued that once a dependent family member of a deceased employee is offered a job at a particular post and accepts it, they cannot later backtrack and claim, based on their superior education (qualifications), that they are entitled to a higher post.
The bench observed that compassionate appointments are granted solely on humanitarian grounds. The bench stated that once a family member of the deceased employee receives a job on compassionate grounds, the purpose is fully served. “Therefore, the petitioners’ argument that they should be given another opportunity for further appointment to a higher post is not tenable.” The bench stated that once an applicant’s right to be considered for a job on compassionate grounds is fulfilled, there is no need for further consideration. The bench said that compassionate appointment cannot be used merely as a stepping stone to climb the seniority ladder on the ground that the dependent is qualified for the post.
The bench observed that a right once exercised cannot be allowed to be exercised repeatedly, making it a never-ending process. The bench said, “A person applying for a post on compassionate grounds may be qualified for any higher post, but that does not mean that he has a right to be appointed to that post.”
The bench concluded, “It can be inferred that the dependent of a deceased employee, even if qualified, is not entitled to appointment to any post as a matter of right on compassionate grounds. Such appointments, made purely on humanitarian grounds, should be treated as exceptions to the general rules of appointment.”
What is the case?
The Supreme Court was hearing two separate petitions filed by the Tamil Nadu administration. These petitions challenged the orders of the Madras High Court which had directed the promotion of two individuals, who were previously working as sweepers, to the post of Junior Assistant on compassionate grounds.
The bench noted that according to established law, it is settled that all candidates for government jobs must be given equal opportunities under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The bench observed that after the death of the employees while on duty, their dependent family members were offered jobs in the posts for which they had applied.
