Acceptance of compassionate appointment to a lower post precludes subsequent claims for higher-level posts on the same ground.

The applicant’s father died in harness on 21.02.2006 while serving as a Superintendent under the respondents.

Following a previous litigation (OA No. 113/2011), the Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant’s case for compassionate appointment, resulting in her appointment as a Peon on 27.07.2013.

The applicant accepted the post without protest but later submitted representations seeking appointment to a Group ‘C’ post (such as LDC or Storekeeper), citing her educational qualifications (graduate) and the availability of vacancies at the time of her initial recruitment.

After the respondents rejected her representation via order dated 03.07.2024, she filed the present OA to quash the rejection and seek a higher post.

1. Whether an individual who has already accepted and joined a post on compassionate grounds can subsequently claim a higher post based on the same grounds.

2. Whether the educational qualifications of the applicant or the existence of higher-post vacancies at the time of appointment entitle her to a revision of her compassionate appointment.

The court applied the consolidated guidelines on compassionate appointment issued by the Department of Personnel Training (DoPT) via OM dated 02.08.2022 (incorporating OM dated 09.10.1998), which stipulates that once a compassionate appointment is made, the circumstances leading to it are deemed to have ceased, and requests for higher posts must be rejected.

The court also relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138, which established that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief from economic calamity—not to cater to the status or dignity of the applicant—and that candidates are free to refuse a post if they find it below their dignity.

Additionally, the principle of "negative equality" was invoked to state that irregular benefits granted to others do not create a legal right for the applicant.

The Tribunal reasoned that by accepting the post of Peon in 2013 without demur, the applicant is legally estopped from demanding a different or higher post.

Applying DoPT guidelines, the court noted that the "economic crisis" justifying the appointment is resolved once employment is secured; thereafter, the appointee must compete like any other employee for future career advancement.

Regarding the applicant's claim that she was a graduate and vacancies in Group 'C' existed, the Tribunal applied the Umesh Kumar Nagpal doctrine, clarifying that the purpose of the scheme is subsistence, not providing a post equivalent to the deceased's status or the applicant's qualification.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's plea of discrimination, noting that she failed to provide specific details of "similarly situated" persons, and even if such cases existed, they would not override the established legal position.

The Original Application was dismissed as being devoid of merit and no costs were awarded.