The Supreme Court has ruled that a dependent who accepts a compassionate appointment to a particular post cannot later seek a higher post on the ground of having superior qualifications. The Court said that allowing such claims would amount to “endless compassion,” which goes against the limited humanitarian purpose of the scheme. The judgment was delivered on December 12, 2025, by a Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan while allowing eight connected appeals filed by the Director of Town Panchayats and the District Collector of Dharmapuri district.
These appeals challenged the Madras High Court’s orders that had directed the appointment of certain sweepers, appointed on compassionate grounds, to the post of Junior Assistant. The Court examined the circumstances of two dependents, M. Jayabal and S. Veeramani, who had initially accepted appointments as sweepers after the death of their fathers but later approached the High Court seeking higher posts. Jayabal’s father died in 2011. He applied for compassionate appointment the following year and joined as a sweeper in September 2012. Nearly three years later, he filed a writ petition asking to be appointed as a Junior Assistant instead. Veeramani’s case followed a similar pattern. His father died in 2006, and he joined service as a sweeper in early 2007. Only in 2015, almost nine years later, did he claim that he should have been appointed as a Junior Assistant because he possessed the required qualifications at the time.
A Single Judge of the High Court allowed these claims in 2016, and a Division Bench upheld the decision. Review petitions were also dismissed, prompting the state authorities to approach the Supreme Court. Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, representing the appellants, argued that compassionate appointment is meant to help a family survive an immediate financial crisis and is not intended to be a route to secure higher posts. He stressed that once a dependent accepts a position, the purpose of the scheme is served and the matter ends. He also highlighted the long delays in filing the writ petitions and relied on earlier decisions such as Prahalad Mani Tripathi, Premlata and Debabrata Tiwari.
For the respondents, Advocate M. Purushothaman argued that they were unaware of their eligibility for higher posts at the initial stage and learned of it only later when similarly placed individuals received better postings. He maintained that their actions did not amount to delay and said they should not be forced to remain in lower posts despite possessing the necessary qualifications.
The Supreme Court reviewed the established principles governing compassionate appointments, referring to the landmark ruling in Umesh Kumar Nagpal, which made it clear that such appointments are given to help families overcome sudden financial distress. They are not intended to provide a post equivalent to the one held by the deceased employee and are not meant to open the door to further career demands. The Court reaffirmed that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right, and that the scheme cannot be expanded to allow dependents to seek higher posts at a later stage.
Drawing on the decision in Umrao Singh, the Court observed that once a dependent accepts employment on compassionate grounds, the right is fully exercised and cannot be revived. Allowing a second claim would lead to “endless compassion,” which the Court said was never the aim of the policy. The Bench also rejected the argument that the delay should be excused because the dependents discovered their supposed entitlement later. It noted that compassionate appointment addresses immediate hardship, and long delays dilute its purpose. The Court emphasized that an illegal benefit extended to others cannot justify repeating the same mistake.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the Madras High Court’s orders and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents. The ruling reinforces that compassionate appointment is a one-time relief mechanism and not a pathway to claim higher posts after acceptance.
Case Title: The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr.
