Compassionate appointment not matter of right, can't be used to claim higher post: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that the dependent of a deceased employee, though eligible, is not entitled to appointment at any position on a compassionate basis as a matter of right.

A bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan said such an appointment, which arises out of exceptional circumstances, cannot be used as a ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/she is eligible for such a post.

"It can be concluded that the dependent of a deceased employee, though eligible, is not entitled to appointment at any position on a compassionate basis as a matter of right. Such appointments, made on purely humanitarian grounds, have to be viewed as exceptions to the general rules of appointment," the bench said.

It passed the verdict on two separate pleas of the Tamil Nadu administration challenging the Madras High Court orders directing for promoting two persons, initially employed as sweepers, on compassionate grounds to the post of junior assistant.

The bench said that mere eligibility of the applicant cannot be a reason enough to materialise his/her claim for appointment on a higher post.

"Once a family member of the deceased employee is offered an appointment on a compassionate basis, the purpose stands well served. Therefore, the contention of the respondents that they are entitled to be reconsidered for further appointment on a higher post is not maintainable," it said.

It added that according to the settled law, it has been held that equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants for government vacancies as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

"However, an appointment on compassionate grounds offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right," it said.

Elaborating on the finding, the bench said that after the death of the employees in service, the dependent family members were offered appointment to a post for which an application was made by them.

"They had joined on that post without raising any objection. Meaning thereby, the financial crisis of the family was over as one of the dependents of the deceased was offered appointment on a compassionate basis in terms of the policy existing at the time of consideration of their application," it said.

On the issue of whether the dependent family member of a deceased employee, after being appointed to a post on a compassionate basis, can later on seek indulgence of the employer to appoint him on a higher post, the bench said this issue also stands settled by earlier decisions of the court.

"In view of the law laid down by this court, it stands clarified that once the right of an applicant to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further consideration is warranted. Once dependent of a deceased employee being offered employment on a compassionate basis, his right stood exercised.

"Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment to a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of 'endless compassion'," the top court said.

It added that a compassionate appointment is a relief against immense financial hardship caused by the sudden and unforeseen loss of the earning member of a family and in such an event, when a dependant family member of the deceased employee is provided appointment on a compassionate basis, it is done in order to ensure that the family members are not subjected to impoverishment.

Referring to the case in hand, the bench said respondents were heirs of the deceased employees who were appointed on a compassionate basis upon the death of their fathers.

"Their appointment, in its own self, was a sufficient relief to serve the actual purpose behind compassionate appointments. The further claim of seeking appointment on a higher post cannot be based on the sole premise that another similarly placed person was granted such a benefit," it said, while setting aside the high court order.

It upheld the decision of the competent authority to reject their claim for appointment to a higher post, after they had already been appointed to a lower post.

"The view expressed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court directing their appointment on a higher post w.e.f the date of judgment was certainly erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law laid down by this Court on the subject," it said.