Compassionate appointee who relinquishes a higher post cannot later claim retrospective appointment thereto.

The appellant’s father, a teacher, died on 8 December 2002. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 21 December 2002. Under the Government Resolution dated 10 March 2000, an SSC-qualified legal heir was eligible for a Class-III post, while a person with a 7th-standard qualification was eligible for a Class-IV post.

Although the District Development Officer recommended the appellant for a Class-III appointment, the appellant gave an undertaking that he would accept any Class-IV post and thereby relinquished his claim to a Class-III appointment. He was appointed to a Class-IV post on 9 May 2007.

After clearing the requisite examinations, he was promoted to Class III on 6 December 2018.

In 2023, he successfully sought recognition of his service from the date of his initial appointment and challenged the five-year fixed-pay regime, without claiming retrospective Class-III status.

In 2025, he filed a fresh writ petition seeking to be treated as a Class-III employee from the date of his initial appointment. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant was bound by his undertaking. The appellant thereafter filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Whether the appellant, having expressly undertaken to accept a Class-IV compassionate appointment and relinquished his claim to a Class-III post, could subsequently seek retrospective appointment or classification as a Class-III employee from the date of his initial appointment.

Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s claim for retrospective Class-III status.

The Court applied the Government Resolution dated 10 March 2000 governing compassionate appointments, under which eligibility for Class III or Class IV depended on the applicant’s educational qualification.

It further applied the principle of estoppel arising from a solemn and unconditional undertaking: a person who knowingly relinquishes a claim to a particular appointment and accepts an alternative appointment cannot subsequently assert the relinquished claim contrary to that undertaking.

The appellant’s original entitlement to consideration for a Class-III post did not survive his express undertaking to accept a Class-IV post. The appointment made on 9 May 2007 was therefore accepted on the basis of his voluntary relinquishment of the Class-III claim.

His subsequent promotion to Class III after clearing the requisite examinations did not retrospectively alter the nature of his initial appointment.

The Court also noted that, in his earlier 2023 proceedings, the appellant had sought service benefits from the date of his Class-IV appointment but had not claimed Class-III status, which further undermined his later retrospective claim.

Accordingly, the undertaking operated as an estoppel against treating his initial appointment as a Class-III appointment.

Finding no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s order, the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed. The pending Civil Application for stay was ordered to be consigned to the record.