The Director Of Town Panchayat vs. M Jayabal

REPORTABLE

2025 INSC 1423
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12640-12643 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.8776-8779 OF 2023)

THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN
PANCHAYAT & ORS. … Appellant (s)

VERSUS
M. JAYABAL & ANR. ETC. … Respondent(s)

WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.12644-12647 OF 2025
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.8780-8783 of 2023)

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
DHARMAPURI DISTIRCT … Appellant (s)

VERSUS
M. JAYABAL & ORS. ETC. … Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. This order will dispose of eight appeals which arise out of a
1 2 3
common judgment of the High Court and order passed in the subsequent
review applications.

Page 1 of 23

2. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Division Bench of the
High Court, the present appeals have been filed. The High Court vide
impugned judgment has directed that the respondents herein be given
appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. They were initially appointed as
sweepers on compassionate basis. The impugned judgment upheld the
order of the learned Single Judge, who vide judgment dated 07.10.2016
passed in W.P Nos. 16758-16759 of 2015, directed the appellants to issue
suitable orders for their appointment as Junior Assistants. They were also
held entitled to receive salary for the post of a Junior Assistant from the date
of the order. The respondents herein, on account of death of their fathers,
who were working as sweepers, were initially granted appointment on
compassionate basis as sweepers. It was in terms of the applications made
by them. After huge delay, they preferred writ petitions claiming
appointment to a higher post namely Junior Assistant raising the plea that
they were qualified for the same at the time of the initial appointment.
Learned Single Judge allowed the claim. The order was then upheld by the
Division Bench and the applications for review were also dismissed. The
aforesaid orders are under challenge in the present appeals.
ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANTS
3. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants, contended that the impugned judgment of the High Court
deserves to be set aside on more than one grounds. He submitted that
appointment on compassionate basis is not a matter of right rather a
Page 2 of 23

concession given to the family members of a deceased employee to enable
them to come out of sudden financial crisis. Once a dependent family
member of a deceased has been offered appointment on a particular post
and he has accepted the same, he cannot, later on, turn around and claim
that he is entitled to a higher post on account of his better qualifications. At
that stage the family cannot be said to be in financial crisis. Even otherwise,
option once exercised by the family member of the deceased employee
cannot be allowed to be exercised again once the earlier option fructified
into employment to a post on which the person concerned had joined and
had been working.
4
3.1 There was huge delay in filing of writ petition by the
respondents. Hence, on that ground also the respondents deserved to be
non-suited.
3.2 It was further submitted that the Government Orders have been
wrongly interpreted by the High Court while granting relief to the
respondents.
3.3 In support of the arguments, reliance has been placed upon the
5
judgments of this Court in I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi , State
6 7
of U.P. v. Premlata and State of W.B. v. Debabrata Tiwari .


4
W.P. No.16759 of 2015
5
2007 INSC 496 : (2007) 6 SCC 162
6
2021 INSC 619 : (2022) 1 SCC 30
7
2023 INSC 202 : (2025) 5 SCC 712
Page 3 of 23

ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. In response, Mr. M. Purushothaman, learned counsel for the
respondents, submitted that the relief which has been granted to them by
the High Court does not call for interference by this Court as it pertains to
employment to the member of a family which was in crisis. There is no mis-
interpretation of the Government Orders. In fact, at the initial stage when
the respondents accepted the employment offer, they did not know that they
were entitled to the post of Junior Assistant, hence could not make a request
for the same. The moment they came to know that other similarly situated
persons had been given employment on the higher post, keeping in view
their qualifications, they immediately took up the issue. There was no delay
in the process. The respondents could not be discriminated. Considering
the kind of qualification that the respondents possess, they should not be
made to work on Class IV post especially when the Government Orders
permit their employment on compassionate basis on a higher post. That
being the case, there is no merit in the present appeals and the same
deserve to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record.
6. The following table shows in brief the post on which the
deceased employees were working, date of their death, the post for which
their dependent/s applied, the date on which the employment was offered
Page 4 of 23

and the post that was offered, the date of joining thereon along with the date
of filing of the writ petition, seeking appointment on a higher post.

WHETHER COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
IS A MATTER OF RIGHT ?

7. First and the foremost issue which requires consideration by this
Court in the present appeals is whether the compassionate appointment of a
family member on account of death of an employee in service, is as a matter
of right or not. The issue stands settled in an authoritative judgment of this
8
Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors . It was opined
therein that the core objective behind granting compassionate employment
is to enable the family to tide over sudden financial crisis and such
favourable treatment that is given to the dependant of the deceased

8
1994 INSC 189 : (1994) 4 SCC 138
Page 5 of 23

employee is a relief against destitution. It is totally on humanitarian grounds.
The relevant paragraphs in are extracted below:
“2………..One such exception is in favour of the
dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving
his family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless some source
of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who may be eligible for such employment.
The whole object of granting compassionate employment
is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
The object is not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is
further, mere death of an employee in harness does not
entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The
Government or the public authority concerned has to
examine the financial condition of the family of the
deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will not be able to
meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible
member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are
the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories
and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate
grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the
financial destitution and to help it get over the
emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest
posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and
valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable
Page 6 of 23

treatment given to such dependant of the deceased
employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against
destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be
given by the public authorities for the purpose….”
(emphasis supplied)

7.1 In the Premlata’s case (supra) , this court analysed the nature
of appointment made on compassionate basis and opined that the same is an
exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services. The
aspirant has no right to compassionate appointment. It was clarified that the
appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right. The
relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“8. While considering the issue involved in the
present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on
compassionate ground on the death of the deceased
employee are required to be referred to and considered.
In the recent decision, this Court in State of Karnataka v.
V. Somyashree [State of Karnataka v. V. Somyashree,
(2021) 12 SCC 20 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 704] , had
occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of
appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to
the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of
Karnataka [N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7
SCC 617 : (2020) 2 SCC (L&S) 861] , this Court has
7ummarized the principle governing the grant of
appointment on compassionate ground as under : (V.
Somyashree case [State of Karnataka v. V. Somyashree,
Page 7 of 23

(2021) 12 SCC 20 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 704] , SCC para
10)

“10.1. That the compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule.
10.2. That no aspirant has a right to compassionate
appointment.
10.3. The appointment to any public post in the
service of the State has to be made on the basis of the
principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
10.4. Appointment on compassionate ground can
be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the
State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility
criteria as per the policy.
10.5. The norms prevailing on the date of the
consideration of the application should be the basis
for consideration of claim for compassionate
appointment.”

9. As per the law laid down by this Court in a
catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate
ground, for all the government vacancies equal
opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as
mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
However, appointment on compassionate ground offered
to a dependant of a deceased employee is an exception
to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a
concession and not a right.
(emphasis supplied)
Page 8 of 23

10. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is
an exception to the general rule of appointment in the
public services and is in favour of the dependants of a
deceased dying-in-harness and leaving his family in
penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such
cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some source of
livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to
make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of
the deceased who may be eligible for such employment.
The whole object of granting compassionate employment
is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis.
The object is not to give such family a post much less a
post held by the deceased.”
(emphasis supplied)

7.2 Later, similar view was expressed by a Three-Judge Bench of
9
this Court in Tinku vs. State of Haryana & Ors. . The relevant paragraph
is extracted below:
“12. As regards the compassionate appointment being
sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment,
suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of
service of an employee who dies in harness, which must
be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or
undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment
which is given on proper and strict scrutiny of the various

9
2024 INSC 867 : 2024 SCC Online SC 3292
Page 9 of 23

parameters as laid down with an intention to help a family
out of a sudden pecuniary financial destitution to help it
get out of the emerging urgent situation where the sole
bread earner has expired, leaving them helpless and
maybe penniless. Compassionate appointment is,
therefore, provided to bail out a family of the deceased
employee facing extreme financial difficulty and but for
the employment, the family will not be able to meet the
crisis. This shall in any case be subject to the claimant
fulfilling the requirements as laid down in the policy,
instructions, or rules for such a compassionate
appointment.”

7.3 Applying the above principles of law, it can be concluded that
the dependent of a deceased employee, though eligible, is not entitled to
appointment at any position on compassionate basis as a matter of right.
Such appointments, made on purely humanitarian grounds, have to be
viewed as exceptions to the general rules of appointment. It is important to
note that mere eligibility of the applicant cannot be reason enough to
materialise his/her claim for appointment on a higher post. Once a family
member of the deceased employee is offered appointment on
compassionate basis, the purpose stands well served. Therefore, the
contention of the respondents that they are entitled to be reconsidered for
further appointment on a higher post is not maintainable.




Page 10 of 23

CLAIM FOR HIGHER POST
8. It is not in dispute that after the death of the employees in
service, the dependent family members were offered appointment to a post
for which an application was made by them. They had joined on that post
without raising any objection. Meaning thereby, the financial crisis of the
family was over as one of the dependents of the deceased was offered
appointment on compassionate basis in terms of the policy existing at the
time of consideration of their application.

8.1 The next issue which requires consideration by this Court is
whether the dependent family member of a deceased employee, after being
appointed on a post on compassionate basis, can later on seek indulgence
of the employer to appoint him on a higher post.
9. The law on the issue is well-settled. The issue as to whether a
second option can be exercised by the dependent family member of the
deceased employee, once option for compassionate appointment has
already been exercised and the dependent family member of the deceased
joined on the post to which appointment was given, was considered by this
10
Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh . In this case, the deceased
was working as Sub-Inspector, CID. On account of his death during service,
application for appointment on compassionate basis was made. The
dependant was offered appointment on the post of L.D.C. The same was

10
1994 INSC 423 : (1994) 6 SCC 560
Page 11 of 23

accepted and the incumbent joined on the post. Later, he requested for
consideration of his case for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, being
eligible for the same. This Court negated the claim holding that once right
for consideration for appointment on compassionate post was consummated,
any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of
compassion would not arise. The relevant paragraph 8 is extracted below:
“8. Admittedly the respondent's father died in
harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special
Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an
application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on
compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC
according to the availability of vacancy. On a
consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of
LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the
appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be
considered for the appointment on compassionate
ground was consummated. No further consideration on
compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it
would be a case of “endless compassion”. Eligibility to
be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the
process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because
of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be
issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no
application to the facts of this case.”
( emphasis supplied )

Page 12 of 23

10. In view of the law laid down by this Court, it stands clarified that
the once the right of an applicant to be considered for appointment on
compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further consideration is
warranted. Once dependent of a deceased employee is offered employment
on compassionate basis, his right stood exercised. Thereafter, no question
arises for seeking appointment on a higher post. Otherwise, it would be a
case of ‘endless compassion’.
WHETHER THE DEPENDANT OF A DECEASED EMPLOYEE CAN SEEK
EMPLOYMENT ON COMPASSIONATE BASIS ON A HIGHER POST ?

11. This Court has also opined on the issue whether a dependent
family member of a deceased employee can seek compassionate
appointment on a post higher than the post which the deceased was holding,
merely on the ground that he fulfils the criteria of such higher post. The
opinion expressed is that the same will run contrary to the very object of
grant of compassionate appointment, which is provided to enable the family
of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis. Employment
on compassionate basis is provided only on account of humanitarian
consideration. Relevant paragraph of the judgment of this Court in Premlata
(Supra) is extracted below:
“10.2 In a given case, it may happen that the
dependant of the deceased employee who has applied
for appointment on compassionate ground is having the
educational qualification of Class II or Class I post and the
deceased employee was working on the post of
Class/Grade IV and/or lower than the post applied, in
Page 13 of 23

that case the dependant/applicant cannot seek the
appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post
than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter
of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the
eligibility criteria of such higher post. The aforesaid shall
be contrary to the object and purpose of grant of
appointment on compassionate ground which as
observed hereinabove is to enable the family to tide over
the sudden crisis on the death of the breadearner. As
observed above, appointment on compassionate ground
is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking
into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood
is provided and family would be able to make both ends
meet.”

12. Keeping in view the core objective behind appointment on
compassionate basis, as has been discussed in a catena of judgments of this
Court, it is well settled that compassionate appointment is a relief against
immense financial hardship caused by the sudden and unforeseen loss of the
earning member of a family. In such event, when a dependant family
member of the deceased employee is provided appointment on
compassionate basis, it is done in order to ensure that the family members
are not subjected to impoverishment. Therefore, such appointment which is
arising out of exceptional circumstances, cannot be used as a ladder to climb
up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/she is
eligible for such post.

Page 14 of 23

DELAY AND LACHES
13. The claim of the respondents/M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani also
deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches as has been
noticed in the previous part of the judgment. Both the respondents had
approached the Court belated after they had joined on the post they were
offered appointment on compassionate basis. Reference for this purpose
can be made to the judgment of this Court in State of Orissa v. Laxmi
11
Narayan Das wherein it was held that delay reflects the indolence of a
litigant and the Court must scrutinise whether such belated lis must be
entertained or not. Therefore, inordinate delay on behalf of any litigant to do
an act required by law shall stand in his/her way for getting relief.
14. This Court in Debabrata Tiwari’s case (supra) has opined that
in a case where the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds is
belated, for reasons of prolonged delay, the sense of immediacy is diluted
and lost. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
“35. Considering the second question referred to
above, in the first instance, regarding whether
applications for compassionate appointment could be
considered after a delay of several years, we are of the
view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged
delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming
compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding
such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost.
Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the

11
2023 INSC 619 : (2023) 15 SCC 273
Page 15 of 23

deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the
time of the death of the government employee.
xxx x x x xxx
41. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the
present case, we hold that the respondent-writ
petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year
2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the
year 2015 i.e. for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding
the tardy approach of the authorities of the appellant State
in dealing with their applications, the respondent-writ
petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking
a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities
of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in
approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a
waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the
respondent-writ petitioners. Such a delay would
disentitle the respondent-writ petitioners to the
discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

15. It is a settled principle of law that delay in filing of writ petition
before the High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party. This principle is
more applicable in the cases of compassionate appointments. The idea
behind compassionate appointment is to take care of immediate financial
crisis in the family of the deceased employee. In such case, the delay would
mean that the family could survive even after death of the employee, as they
may be having another source of income. In such circumstances, the party
approaching the court with a significant delay can be denied the relief.

Page 16 of 23

NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION
16. Another argument raised by learned counsel for the
respondents/M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani was to claim parity with another
employee who had been granted similar benefit. The law on the subject is
well-settled. No one can approach the court and base his claim on negative
discrimination merely because some relief has been granted to a person
who may not be entitled to the same. This Court in Tinku’s case (supra)
opined that wrongful conferment of a right or claim on someone would not
entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court and nor would the court
be bound to accept such a plea. The relevant paragraph is extracted below:
“11. The very idea of equality enshrined in Article
14 is a concept clothed in positivity based on law. It can
be invoked to enforce a claim having sanctity of law. No
direction can, therefore, be issued mandating the State to
perpetuate any illegality or irregularity committed in
favour of a person, an individual, or even a group of
individuals which is contrary to the policy or instructions
applicable. Similarly, passing of an illegal order
wrongfully conferring some right or claim on someone
does not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a
court nor would court be bound to accept such plea. The
court will not compel the authority to repeat that illegality
over again. If such claims are entertained and directions
issued, that would not only be against the tenets of the
justice but would negate its ethos resulting in the law
being a causality culminating in anarchy and lawlessness.
The Court cannot ignore the law, nor can it overlook the
Page 17 of 23

same to confer a right or a claim that does not have legal
sanction. Equity cannot be extended, and that too
negative to confer a benefit or advantage without legal
basis or justification.”
(emphasis supplied)

17. Reference for the purpose can also be made to the judgment of
12
this Court in Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of Odisha . The relevant
extract is reproduced herein below:
“31. Another argument was raised while referring to
two communications dated 28.06.1999 appointing Ms.
Jhina Rani Mansingh and Sri Lalatendu Rath as Tracer on
promotion, claiming to be from the post of Peon, on the
basis of which the petitioner is claiming violation of
Article 14, namely the discrimination. Suffice to add, this
Court cannot put a stamp on the illegalities committed by
the department while perpetuating the same. A litigant
coming to the Court cannot claim negative discrimination
seeking direction from the Court to the department to act
in violation of the law or statutory Rules. It is a settled
proposition of law that Article 14 does not envisage
negative equality. Reference for the purpose can be
made to a judgment of this Court in R. Muthukumar v. The
Chairman and Managing Director TANGEDCO. Relevant
para thereof is extracted below:
“28. A principle, axiomatic in this country's
constitutional lore is that there is no negative

12
2025 INSC 87 : 2025 SCC Online SC 117
Page 18 of 23

equality. In other words, if there has been a benefit
or advantage conferred on one or a set of people,
without legal basis or justification, that benefit cannot
multiply, or be relied upon as a principle of parity or
equality. In Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition
Officer, this court ruled that:
“8. It is a settled legal proposition that
Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to
perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by
extending the wrong decisions made in other
cases. The said provision does not envisage
negative equality but has only a positive
aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated
persons have been granted some
relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake,
such an order does not confer any legal right
on others to get the same relief as well. If a
wrong is committed in an earlier case, it
cannot be perpetuated.”
(emphasis supplied)

18. From the position of law as enunciated above, it is evident that
the foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element
of negative discrimination. The respondents in the present case are heirs of
the deceased employees who were appointed on compassionate basis upon
the death of their fathers. Their appointment, in its own self, was a sufficient
relief to serve the actual purpose behind compassionate appointments. The
further claim of seeking appointment on a higher post cannot be based on
Page 19 of 23

the sole premise that another similarly placed person was granted such
benefit. It is a settled proposition of law that an illegality committed by an
authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its extension to
other similarly placed persons. Thus, the contention of respondents that they
may be appointed on a higher post in view of similar benefit being granted
to another person is wholly misplaced and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
19. From the law on the issue which we have referred to in the
aforesaid paragraphs, it is clearly culled out that illegal orders, passed in
case of similarly situated person, will not confer any right upon the other
person to come to the court and enforce the same claiming discrimination.
Such plea cannot be accepted as the authorities cannot be directed to
perpetuate the wrong committed by them. The party in such cases may have
different remedies. We are not dilating on the same.

FACTS OF THE CASE
20. With reference to the above enunciation of law, if the facts of the
case are considered, M. Jayabal, respondent No.1 in C.A. No.12640 of 2025
was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Sweeper, for which he
applied and after joining and working on that post, he applied for a higher
post after a gap of three years. Similarly, in the case of S. Veeramani,
respondent No.1 in C.A. No.12641 of 2025 who was also appointed on
compassionate basis on the post of Sweeper, for which he applied and after
joining and working on that post, he has applied for the higher post after a
gap of nine years.
Page 20 of 23

21. From the aforesaid facts, it is established that the
respondents/M. Jayabal & S. Veeramani had applied for a particular post and
their prayer was accepted, as a result of which they were offered
appointment on the post for which they had applied. After they had joined
on the post offered to them on compassionate basis, consideration of their
prayer for the same stood consummated. The families of both the
respondents were no more in financial distress. The right once exercised
could not be permitted to be exercised again and again by making it an
endless exercise. An applicant for the post on compassionate basis may be
eligible for any higher post but that does not mean he has right to be
appointed on that post. This depends on the rules and the policy applicable
and also the number of vacancies to be offered in that category. In fact, this
is not an additional source of recruitment, rather an exception to the general
rule of providing equal opportunities to all for recruitment in government
jobs. This Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. vs.
13
Anusree K.B. has held that for consideration of an application for
appointment on compassionate basis, financial status of the family is also a
relevant factor. It is not a matter of selection or choice of an applicant for
such a post, rather for the employer to consider various factors. The basic
idea is to provide succour to the family to enable them to come out of

13
2022 INSC 1051: 2022 SCC Online SC 1331
Page 21 of 23

immediate financial crisis. Delay in filing the application for compassionate
appointment has also been held to be fatal for the exercise of such a right.
22. If the facts of the case in hand are considered, in our view,
belated applications made by the respondents seeking appointment on a
higher post, after they had already been appointed on a lower post, was
rightly rejected by the competent authority. The view expressed by learned
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court directing their
appointment on a higher post w.e.f the date of judgement was certainly
erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law laid down by this Court on the
subject.
23. In our view, the issue of discrepancies/anomalies, as were
sought to be pointed out with respect to the relevant government orders, or
the rights which, according to the respondents, were flowing to them on the
basis of the said government orders, is not required to be touched as, for the
purpose of grant or refusal of relief to the respondents, nothing hinges on
the said government orders.
24. The only plea raised by the respondents/M. Jayabal & S.
Veeramani for seeking appointment on a higher post was that they were
ignorant about their right for such appointment, initially, on a higher post
and that a similar relief having been granted to others, the respondents
should not be discriminated against. It is well-settled that ignorance of law
is not an excuse, as a result of which, such plea raised by the respondents
Page 22 of 23

cannot be entertained. Further, negative discrimination cannot be claimed
if a no right can be made out as per the settled position of law.
25. For the reasons mentioned above, we find merit in the present
appeals. The same are accordingly allowed and the impugned judgment/s
of the High Court are set aside. Resultantly, W.P.No.16759 of 2015 filed by
respondent/M. Jayabal and W.P. No 16758 of 2015 filed by respondent/S.
Veeramani before the High Court are dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.

……………….……………..J.
(RAJESH BINDAL)


……………….……………..J.
(MANMOHAN)
New Delhi
December 12, 2025.

Page 23 of 23