Those who accept a compassionate appointment cannot later claim a higher post. This clear position has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of India, which set aside a judgment of the Madras High Court and allowed appeals filed by authorities in Tamil Nadu.
The Supreme Court, on compassionate appointment, held that once a dependent of a deceased employee accepts a post offered on compassionate grounds, the claim stands fully satisfied and cannot be reopened for seeking appointment to a higher post.
The Court cautioned that permitting such claims would convert an exceptional relief into a continuing entitlement, which the law does not recognise.
Case Background
The matter arose from claims made by two dependents, M Jayabal and S Veeramani, who were appointed as sweepers on compassionate grounds following the death of the government employee in their families.
After joining service without protest, they later approached the court claiming that they were qualified to be appointed as Junior Assistants and that such higher posts should have been offered to them.
Accepting their plea, the Madras High Court directed the authorities to consider their appointment as Junior Assistants. This decision was challenged by the Director of Town Panchayat and other local authorities before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
A Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan reversed the High Court’s view and reiterated settled principles governing compassionate appointment.
The Supreme Court on compassionate appointment observed that the scheme exists solely to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee facing hardship. Once that relief is granted and accepted, the legal purpose of the scheme comes to an end.
The Court categorically held that eligibility for a higher post does not translate into a legal right to demand such appointment under compassionate grounds.
According to the Bench, compassionate appointment cannot be treated as an alternative mode of recruitment or as a pathway for career advancement.
It was further observed that allowing repeated or upgraded claims after acceptance of a post would result in what the Court described as endless compassion, a situation wholly inconsistent with constitutional principles governing public employment.
Ignorance of Law Not a Defence
Rejecting the argument that the respondents were unaware of their eligibility for higher posts at the relevant time, the Court reaffirmed that ignorance of law is not an excuse.
The respondents had applied for a specific post, accepted that appointment, and joined service without raising any objection. Having exercised their right once, they could not be permitted to exercise it again.
The Court also noted that the families of the respondents were no longer in financial distress, reinforcing the conclusion that the compassionate appointment scheme had already served its intended purpose.
Final Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court judgment and upheld the stand of the Tamil Nadu authorities. The ruling once again clarifies that the Supreme Court on compassionate appointment does not permit claims for higher posts after acceptance of an offered position.
This judgment strengthens the legal position that compassionate appointment remains an exception carved out to address immediate hardship and cannot be expanded into a continuing or revisable entitlement.
Case Details
- Case Title: Director of Town Panchayat v. M Jayabal and another
- Appellant: Director of Town Panchayat and connected local authorities, Tamil Nadu
- Respondents: M Jayabal and S Veeramani
- Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal, Justice Manmohan
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Decision Date: 13 December 2025
Follow Mahamana News For More Recent Judgments
Director of Town Panchayat v. M Jayabal and another
