Recently, the Supreme Court held that a person appointed on compassionate grounds to mitigate the financial hardship faced by a family due to the death of an employee in harness cannot seek appointment or promotion to a higher post merely because they are educationally qualified for it.
The case arose from two individuals who were appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds by the Tamil Nadu government in 2007 and 2012, following the death of their fathers while in service. Although they possessed the educational qualifications required for the post of Junior Assistant at the time of their initial appointments, they were offered lower posts in accordance with the compassionate appointment scheme. In 2015, both employees approached the Madras High Court, seeking appointment as Junior Assistants. The High Court accepted their plea and directed the State to grant them the higher posts.
The Tamil Nadu government challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that compassionate appointment is meant only as a one-time relief to address immediate financial hardship and cannot be converted into a mode of regular recruitment or promotion. On the other hand, the employees contended that since they were already qualified for the post of Junior Assistant at the time of appointment, denying them the higher post was arbitrary and unfair.
A bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan overturned the High Court’s ruling, emphasising that compassionate appointment is an exceptional measure, not a pathway for career advancement. The Court observed that employment on compassionate grounds is granted solely to help the family of a deceased employee overcome sudden financial distress. Such appointments, the bench said, cannot be treated as a “ladder” to climb to higher posts merely on the basis of eligibility.
Justice Bindal remarked that once a dependent accepts employment on compassionate grounds, the right stands exhausted, and permitting further claims would amount to what the Court described as “endless compassion.”
The bench further clarified that recruitment to higher posts is governed by statutory rules applicable to all candidates, and allowing compassionate appointees to bypass this process would violate the principle of equal opportunity in public employment.
Setting aside the Madras High Court judgment, the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment does not confer any right to appointment or promotion to a higher post. The Court reiterated that such appointments are not an additional source of recruitment but a limited exception to address immediate hardship arising from the death of an employee in service.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
