Compassionate Appointees Barred from Promotional Benefits if Restricted by Governing Circular’s Policy Terms

The three petitioners were appointed on compassionate grounds between 1993 and 1994 and have been serving in the Health Department for approximately three decades.

They approached the High Court to quash a letter dated 12.03.2025 (Annexure-P/10) issued by the Director-in-Chief, Health Services, which effectively blocked their further promotions.

The State contended that the letter was a policy decision issued in compliance with a General Administration Department Circular dated 05.10.1991, which prohibits a second benefit (such as promotion or change of cadre) for those appointed on compassionate grounds.

1. Whether the letter dated 12.03.2025, which restricts the promotion of compassionate appointees, is legally sustainable under the prevailing service circulars.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to seek promotion despite the prohibitory clauses in the circular under which they were appointed.

State Government Circular dated 05.10.1991 (Memo No. 3/lh 2-2067/90 dkå 13293). Clause 9(d) of the said circular explicitly states that once an individual is appointed on compassionate grounds, they cannot be granted the benefit of compassionate appointment a second time for the purposes of promotion or change of cadre.

General principles of service jurisprudence regarding "legitimate expectation" of promotion after a considerable length of service.

The court found that the petitioners’ appointments were governed by the 1991 Circular. Since Clause 9(d) of said circular categorically prohibits further career progression benefits under the compassionate scheme, the impugned order dated 12.03.2025 was deemed to be in strict accordance with the law rather than a "stigmatic decision".

The court noted that ignoring the circular would amount to granting an impermissible "second benefit" of compassionate appointment.

The court identified a subsequent Memo (Annexure-P/9 dated 17.10.2023) that might offer a different avenue for relief, independent of the restrictive 1991 circular.

The court granted the petitioners liberty to file a representation before the Director-in-Chief (Respondent No. 7) within 30 days. The Respondent is directed to consider if the petitioners' cases fall within the purview of the more recent letter dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure-P/9) and pass a reasoned order within 90 days.