The Supreme Court has held that once a dependent of a deceased employee accepts an appointment to a job on compassionate grounds, the claim is met and cannot be reopened to seek appointment to a higher post [Director of Town Panchayat v. M Jayabal and anr].

A Bench of Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan made the observation in a case where two persons who had been appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds later claimed that they should have been appointed as Junior Assistants instead.

They argued that they came to know only later that there were qualified for being appointed to such higher posts.

The Court rejected this argument and allowed an appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government in the matter.

It added that to hold otherwise would amount to allowing a state of "endless compassion."

"Once dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised. Thereafter, no question arises for seeking appointment on a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion’," the Court said.

The Court also reiterated that a dependent appointed to a job on compassionate grounds cannot claim entitlement to a higher post, just because s/he is qualified for it.

“An applicant for the post on compassionate basis may be eligible for any higher post but that does not mean he has right to be appointed on that post," it said.

It highlighted that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of public employment and cannot be treated as an alternate source of recruitment or an avenue for career progression.

"Such appointment which is 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 that he/she is eligible for such post," the Court stated.

The Court was dealing with appeals filed by local authorities in Tamil Nadu against the Madras High Court's directive to appoint M Jayabal and S Veeramani (respondents) as Junior Assistants, despite their having earlier accepted appointments as sweepers on compassionate grounds.

The Court noted that the two respondents had applied for a specific post, were offered appointment to that very post on compassionate basis, and had joined service without objection.

The Court held that once such appointment is accepted, the purpose of compassionate appointment stands fulfilled and the right cannot be exercised repeatedly.

"The families of both the respondents were no more in financial distress. The right once exercised could not be permitted to be exercised again and again by making it an endless exercise. An applicant for the post on compassionate basis may be eligible for any higher post but that does not mean he has right to be appointed on that post," the Court held.

The Court also rejected an argument that the respondents were not aware that they could have applied for a higher post earlier.

“It is well-settled that ignorance of law is not an excuse, as a result of which, such plea raised by the respondents cannot be entertained," the top court noted.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Madras High Court judgment under challenge.

[Read Judgment]