The Supreme Court has ruled that a person who accepts a job on compassionate grounds cannot later demand appointment to a higher post by invoking recruitment norms meant for regular candidates. The Court said compassionate appointments are a limited concession meant to help a bereaved family regain financial stability after the death of a government employee. They are not a pathway for career progression.
The judgment came in a service dispute where the claimant, after taking a lower post under a compassionate appointment scheme, argued that their qualifications and the service rules entitled them to a higher position. The Court dismissed the plea and made it clear that compassionate appointment is an exception to the usual competitive recruitment process and exists only to address immediate hardship.
The bench said that once a person accepts such an appointment, they also accept the conditions attached to it. Allowing later claims for elevation would go against the purpose of the scheme and weaken the principles of equal opportunity in public employment.
The Court also noted that compassionate appointment schemes must be applied strictly because they depart from the constitutional requirement of open recruitment under Articles 14 and 16. Expanding them beyond their intended scope, it added, would not be legally sustainable.
Reaffirming earlier positions, the Court held that compassionate appointments offer urgent welfare support but do not create a right to future promotion or appointment to higher posts.
