The Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court judgment directing the appointment of dependents of deceased employees to higher posts on compassionate grounds, holding that compassionate appointment is a concession to meet immediate financial distress and not a vested right to career advancement.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan allowed appeals filed by the Director of Town Panchayat and the District Collector, Dharmapuri, against a 2018 Division Bench decision of the Madras High Court, which had upheld directions to appoint the respondents, initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds, as Junior Assistants with retrospective monetary benefits.
The respondents were appointed as sweepers following the death of their fathers, who were also serving as sweepers. Several years after accepting and continuing in service, they approached the High Court claiming appointment to the higher post of Junior Assistant on the ground that they possessed the requisite qualifications at the time of initial appointment. The Single Judge allowed the claim, which was later affirmed by the Division Bench.
Reversing the High Court order, the Supreme Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is meant solely to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of a breadwinner and is an exception to the constitutional mandate of equality in public employment. Once an applicant accepts an appointment offered on compassionate grounds, the purpose of the scheme stands fulfilled and no further or second claim for a higher post can be entertained, as this would amount to “endless compassion”.
The Court also held that claims made after long delays defeat the very object of compassionate appointment, which requires immediacy, and that eligibility for a higher post does not confer any enforceable right. Rejecting the plea of parity, the Bench clarified that negative discrimination cannot be claimed merely because an illegal benefit may have been granted to someone else.
The court has noted that the High Court’s judgment directing their appointment to a higher post w.e.f the date of judgment was ‘erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law laid down by this Court on the subject.’
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the directions for appointment to higher posts were contrary to settled law.
Appearances
Appellants- Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Ms. Purnima Krishna, AOR Mr. M. F. Philip, Adv. Mr. Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Togin M. Babichen, Adv. Ms. Racheeta Chawla, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR
Respondents- Mr. M. Purushotman, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Prafull Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Srimanta Ray, Adv. Ms. Divya Jain, Adv.
