In a packed courtroom on Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered a decisive ruling on the limits of compassionate appointments, overturning a Madras High Court order that had allowed two sweepers-appointed on compassionate grounds-to be elevated to the post of Junior Assistant. The bench, led by Justice Rajesh Bindal, made it clear that humanitarian appointments cannot later be used as a “ladder” to seek higher posts.
Background
The case began several years ago when M. Jayabal and S. Veeramani, both sons of deceased government sweepers, received compassionate appointments as sweepers themselves. They had applied for those posts and joined promptly. However, after three years in one case and nearly nine years in the other, both approached the High Court seeking reappointment as Junior Assistants, arguing that they possessed the qualifications and had discovered others were given higher posts in similar situations.
The Single Judge granted the request, and the Division Bench upheld it, prompting the State and local authorities to appeal before the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Patna High Court Strikes Down Punishment on Sub-Inspector After Finding 'Deemed Guilt Rule' Unconstitutional, Says Disciplinary Action Was Prejudged
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, the bench repeatedly questioned the long delay, noting that compassionate appointment is meant to address immediate hardship following the death of a breadwinner. Justice Bindal remarked at one point, “The moment they accepted the post they applied for, the financial crisis had already been addressed.”
The Court revisited its earlier rulings, including Umesh Kumar Nagpal, stressing that compassionate employment is a concession, not a right.
The bench observed, “Compassionate appointment cannot become a recurring option. Otherwise, it would be a case of endless compassion.”
On the respondents’ argument that others had received higher posts in similar circumstances, the Court was firm: illegality cannot be used to justify further illegality. Quoting from its earlier precedent, the bench stated, “Negative discrimination cannot be claimed. The Court cannot compel the authority to repeat a wrong.”
Read also:- Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes 2003 Assault Case After Parties Reach Peaceful Settlement
The judges also pointed to the table on page 5 of the judgment-showing dates of appointments and filing of petitions-which clearly illustrated, according to the Court, that the belated claims diluted the very concept of urgency underlying compassionate appointment.
Decision
In a crisp and conclusive order, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by Jayabal and Veeramani. The Court held that once a compassionate appointment is accepted, the chapter closes; no second or upgraded appointment can be claimed later merely because the candidate has higher qualifications or discovers someone else received a better deal.
Read also:- Supreme Court Steps In After 13 Years of Vegetative State: Orders Secondary Medical Board to Review
The judgment ends with a firm assertion that ignorance of rules cannot revive a stale claim and that compassionate appointments must remain an exception-not a backdoor route for career progression.
Case Title: The Director of Town Panchayat & Others vs. M. Jayabal & Another
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 12640–12643 of 2025 (with connected Civil Appeal Nos. 12644–12647 of 2025)
Case Type: Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 8776–8779 of 2023 and 8780–8783 of 2023
Decision Date: 12 December 2025
