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 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]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.