The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has ruled that a government employee appointed on compassionate grounds cannot claim appointment to a higher post as a matter of right. The Division Bench clarified that compassionate appointments are meant only to provide immediate relief to a family after the death of a government employee and must strictly follow recruitment rules.
Allowing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State authorities, the court set aside an earlier Single Judge ruling that had treated an employee as a Storekeeper from a retrospective date.
Read also:- Madras High Court Acquits Man in POCSO Case, Says Failure to Prove Victim’s Age Fatally Weakens Prosecution
Background of the Case
The dispute began when Javaid Ahmad Ganai was appointed by the Deputy Commissioner of Anantnag as a Storekeeper on compassionate grounds under the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 (SRO-43). The appointment order was issued on September 13, 2000.
However, authorities later informed him that the post of Storekeeper was a promotional position and could not be filled directly through compassionate appointment. Instead, he was asked to join a Class-IV post with a lower pay scale while his case was considered under the applicable rules.
Ganai accepted the Class-IV position but later challenged the decision before the High Court, arguing that he should be allowed to serve on the Storekeeper post mentioned in the original order.
Government’s Decision and Fresh Litigation
In 2008, the General Administration Department rejected his claim for the higher post. The government held that the Deputy Commissioner’s appointment order to the Storekeeper post was not legally valid and that the employee would instead be treated as appointed to a Class-IV post from the date he started working, i.e., September 13, 2000.
Ganai then filed another writ petition. In 2015, a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the government’s order and held that he should be treated as a Storekeeper from September 13, 2005, though without entitlement to the salary of that post for the earlier period.
The State government challenged this decision through a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench.
Court’s Observations
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench examined the rules governing compassionate appointments and the nature of the Storekeeper post.
The court noted that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process and cannot override statutory recruitment rules.
“The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis,” the bench observed, adding that the scheme is not meant to grant a particular post or a higher position.
The judges emphasized that the Storekeeper post was a promotional post and required eligibility conditions, including experience. Since the respondent had accepted appointment to a Class-IV position, he could not later insist on appointment to a higher post.
The bench also referred to Supreme Court rulings which clarify that once a person accepts a compassionate appointment, the claim for consideration for another or higher post ends.
On Claims of Parity with Others
The respondent argued that some other individuals had been appointed to higher posts on compassionate grounds.
Rejecting this argument, the court stated that an illegal or irregular order in another case cannot be used as a precedent to claim similar relief.
The bench observed that courts cannot compel authorities to repeat an illegality merely because it occurred earlier in another case.
Court’s Decision
Allowing the State’s appeal, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s 2015 order.
“The present appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated 10.07.2015 is set aside,” the court held.
The court clarified that the employee may only seek promotion to the post of Storekeeper in accordance with the applicable recruitment rules and after fulfilling eligibility conditions.
Case Title: State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. vs Javaid Ahmad Ganai & Ors.
Case No.: LPASW No. 145/2018
Decision Date: 27 February 2026
