The Supreme Court on January 16, 2026, drew a clear line on compassionate appointments, holding that once a government job offered on compassionate grounds is accepted, the claim for a higher post cannot be revived decades later. The Court dismissed the appeal filed by Tarun Gagat, calling the challenge meritless and imposing costs for reviving a long-settled issue .
Background of the Case
Tarun Gagat’s father, a forest department employee, died in February 1999. Soon after, Gagat applied for compassionate appointment and was offered the post of Forest Guard in June 1999 under the prevailing scheme. He accepted the appointment without protest.
Read also:- Supreme Court Seeks Justice Gita Mittal Panel Report on Manipur Relief Camps, Sets Two-Month Deadline
Barely a month later, Gagat submitted a representation claiming that he should have been appointed as a Forester, a higher post, relying on a 1998 clarification circular. His request was rejected by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in August 1999. A statutory appeal followed, but for nearly nineteen years, no effective steps were taken to pursue the matter.
In 2020, an appellate order upgraded his initial appointment with retrospective effect. This decision disturbed the seniority of several other employees, prompting affected staff to challenge the order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
High Court Proceedings
A Single Judge of the High Court set aside the retrospective upgradation, noting that compassionate appointments cannot be enhanced after two decades, especially once the original post is accepted. The ruling relied on settled Supreme Court precedent that acceptance of a compassionate post extinguishes any further claim.
Read also:- No Evidence of Caste Humiliation: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Case
The Division Bench later upheld this view in a Letters Patent Appeal, observing that the retrospective benefit was granted arbitrarily and without hearing employees whose seniority stood affected.
Supreme Court’s Observations
Hearing the appeal, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale reiterated that compassionate appointment is not a vested right to a particular post.
“The law is well settled that a candidate seeking compassionate appointment does not have a right to claim a specific post,” the bench observed, referring to earlier judgments of the Court .
The Court was particularly critical of the unexplained delay. It noted that merely filing representations or appeals does not keep a cause of action alive.
“If the appellant believed he was entitled to a higher post, nothing prevented him from pursuing his remedy in time,” the bench remarked.
The judges also highlighted the impact on other employees, pointing out that altering seniority after nearly two decades would unfairly unsettle the service conditions of many who were not even heard before the benefit was granted.
Final Decision
Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court dismissed it and imposed a cost of ₹10,000 on the appellant. The amount is to be paid to the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund, Haryana, within eight weeks, failing which it may be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
With this, the long-running dispute over the compassionate appointment came to a close .
Case Title: Tarun Gagat v. Rakesh Kumar & Others
