Legal provisions involved: Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India

Judge/Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan

Facts

Several employees were given jobs on compassionate grounds after the death of the earning member in their family. They accepted lower posts at the time of appointment. After many years, they approached the High Court claiming that since they were qualified, they should be placed in higher posts with better seniority. The High Court accepted their plea, which led to appeals before the Supreme Court.

Key legal provisions

Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India

Issues raised

Whether a compassionate appointment can later be used to claim a higher post, and whether delayed court petitions deserve relief?

Arguments of the case

The appellants argued that compassionate appointment is meant only to provide immediate financial help and not for career growth. The respondents argued that their qualifications entitled them to better posts.

Judgement

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s order. It held that compassionate appointments are an exception made only to help families in a sudden financial crisis. It cannot be used as a step to gain seniority or a higher post. The court also ruled that a long delay in approaching the court weakens such claims and can be a valid ground to deny relief.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.