The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh held that appointment to a higher post on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the authority to grant such an appointment lies entirely within the discretion of the government. The court clarified that although the relevant rules permit the government to appoint a dependent of a deceased employee to a higher non-gazetted post in certain circumstances, this power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the governing rules and cannot be demanded by an applicant as an enforceable entitlement. The judgment was delivered by a division bench while allowing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Union Territory authorities and setting aside the earlier order of a single judge of the High Court.
The dispute arose in connection with the appointment of a person on compassionate grounds following the death of a government employee. The respondent had initially been appointed to the post of Storekeeper by the Deputy Commissioner of Anantnag under the Jammu and Kashmir Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994, commonly referred to as SRO-43. However, despite the issuance of the appointment order, the respondent was not permitted to assume the role of Storekeeper because the post was considered a promotional post under the relevant recruitment rules. As a result, instead of being allowed to join the position mentioned in the appointment order, the respondent was permitted to join government service against a Class-IV post.
Dissatisfied with the situation, the respondent sought relief through legal proceedings. Earlier proceedings had resulted in directions requiring the government to reconsider the matter. When the government examined the case again, it ultimately rejected the respondent’s claim for appointment to the post of Storekeeper. The authorities concluded that the respondent’s appointment should be treated as one made against a Class-IV post from the date he had joined service. This decision prompted the respondent to challenge the government’s order by filing a writ petition before the High Court.
The writ petition was heard by a single judge of the High Court, who partly allowed the respondent’s plea. The single judge directed that the respondent should be treated as having been appointed to the post of Storekeeper from a specified earlier date. However, the order clarified that the respondent would not be entitled to monetary benefits associated with the position. The Union Territory authorities challenged this decision by filing a Letters Patent Appeal before a division bench of the High Court, arguing that the direction issued by the single judge was legally unsustainable.
During the hearing of the appeal, counsel representing the authorities argued that the respondent did not meet the eligibility requirements prescribed for the post of Storekeeper under the relevant recruitment rules. It was contended that the Deputy Commissioner did not have the authority to appoint the respondent to the post in question and that the position was a promotional one governed by specific qualifications and experience requirements. According to the authorities, the respondent lacked the necessary qualifications and experience at the time the initial appointment order had been issued.
The appellants further argued that the single judge had passed the impugned judgment without giving the authorities an adequate opportunity to file their objections and present their position before the court. They maintained that the order had been passed without considering the full factual and legal aspects of the case and therefore required interference by the appellate bench.
In response, counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the single judge. It was argued that the respondent had acquired sufficient experience over time and should therefore be treated as having been appointed to the post of Storekeeper. The respondent’s counsel maintained that the direction issued earlier by the single judge was justified and should not be disturbed.
The division bench carefully examined the rival submissions and reviewed the legal principles governing compassionate appointments. The court observed that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general method of recruitment in public service. Such appointments are intended to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government employee who dies while in service, leaving the family in financial distress. The bench emphasized that the purpose of compassionate appointment is not to grant a particular post or to ensure that the family member receives a position equivalent to the one held by the deceased employee.
The court further noted that the applicable rules do contain a provision under which the government, through the General Administration Department, may appoint a dependent of a deceased employee to a higher non-gazetted post if the candidate is found eligible and qualified according to the relevant recruitment rules. However, the bench stressed that this provision merely grants a discretionary power to the government and does not create a legal right in favour of the applicant. Therefore, a person seeking compassionate appointment cannot insist upon being appointed to a higher post as a matter of entitlement.
The bench also pointed out that under the framework of SRO-43, compassionate appointments are generally made against the lowest non-gazetted or Class-IV posts, subject to the candidate fulfilling the prescribed eligibility conditions. The court explained that once a person accepts appointment on compassionate grounds to a particular post, the claim made under the compassionate appointment scheme stands satisfied. After accepting such an appointment, the person cannot subsequently demand appointment to a higher post on the same basis.
The court also addressed the respondent’s argument that other similarly situated individuals had been appointed to higher posts on compassionate grounds. Rejecting this contention, the bench stated that even if irregular or illegal appointments had been made in other cases, such instances cannot be relied upon to claim similar treatment. The court observed that an illegal or incorrect decision in one case does not create a legal precedent requiring the authorities or the courts to repeat the same illegality in another case.
While examining the facts of the present case, the division bench noted that the post of Storekeeper was governed by specific recruitment rules and was classified as a promotional post. The position required certain qualifications and experience that the respondent did not possess at the time the appointment order was initially issued. The court also noted that the respondent’s subsequent acquisition of experience during service could not retrospectively justify appointment to the post under the compassionate appointment scheme.
In light of these findings, the division bench concluded that the direction issued by the single judge requiring the authorities to treat the respondent as having been appointed as Storekeeper was not consistent with the governing rules or the established legal principles relating to compassionate appointments. The bench held that the order had overlooked the discretionary nature of the power granted to the government under the relevant provisions.
Accordingly, the court allowed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Union Territory authorities and set aside the judgment of the single judge. The division bench reaffirmed that appointment to a higher post on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the authority to grant such an appointment rests solely with the government, which must exercise its discretion in accordance with the applicable rules and eligibility criteria.
The judgment clarified the legal position regarding the scope and purpose of compassionate appointments within government service. It emphasized that the scheme exists primarily to provide financial support to the family of a deceased employee and is not intended to guarantee appointment to a specific post or to confer any particular status. The court’s ruling therefore reaffirmed that any appointment to a higher post under the compassionate appointment framework can be granted only at the discretion of the government and subject to strict compliance with the relevant recruitment rules and eligibility requirements.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.