Compassionate appointees cannot claim retrospective seniority before their actual entry into service.

The petitioner’s husband, a Daftari in the office of the erstwhile Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gaya, died in harness on 4 June 1996. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gaya recommended her appointment to a Class IV post in its meeting dated 24 November 1998, and the recommendation was communicated to her on 15 December 1998. Despite the recommendation, no appointment was issued for several years.

The petitioner filed CWJC No. 314 of 2007, which was disposed of on 9 July 2010 with a direction to the authorities to take a final decision on her compassionate appointment within three months. Upon continued inaction, she initiated contempt proceedings in MJC No. 1856 of 2012. During the contempt proceedings, the authorities issued an appointment letter, bearing Memo No. 2415, and the petitioner joined on 5 January 2013. Her appointment was subsequently confirmed on 31 October 2013.

The petitioner claimed seniority and consequential salary from 15 December 1998, the date on which the recommendation was communicated. She also claimed salary for the period from 5 January 2013 to June 2013, contending that she had joined on 5 January 2013 but was paid salary only from July 2013.

The respondents contended that the appointment letter required submission and verification of educational, medical fitness, character and dependency certificates. They asserted that the petitioner failed to submit the documents despite communications dated 17 January 2013 and 1 March 2013, and that her joining was accepted only from 1 July 2013.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to retrospective seniority from 15 December 1998, the date of the compassionate appointment recommendation, notwithstanding that she entered service only in January 2013?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to salary for the period from 5 January 2013 to June 2013, when the respondents disputed the acceptance of her joining during that period?

The Court applied the principle that a recommendation by a selection or compassionate appointment committee does not create a vested right to appointment or seniority, and that seniority ordinarily accrues from the date of appointment or actual entry into the relevant cadre, not from the date of recommendation or application.

Relying on State of Bihar v. Arbind Jee, (2021) 14 SCC 38, and the authorities cited therein, including Shitla Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P., (1986) Supp SCC 185, Ganga Vishan Gujrati v. State of Rajasthan, (2019) 16 SCC 28, Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers’ Association v. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715, State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, and State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, (2007) 1 SCC 683, the Court held that retrospective seniority cannot be granted for a period when the employee was not borne on the cadre.

As to salary, the Court considered that the respondents had not adequately established service of the alleged communications or produced a document clearly showing acceptance of joining with effect from 1 July 2013.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim for seniority from 15 December 1998 because that date represented only the Committee’s recommendation, whereas the petitioner was not appointed or borne on the cadre until the appointment letter was issued and she entered service.

Granting seniority for the intervening period would improperly place her ahead of employees who had actually entered service during that period, contrary to the settled rule against retrospective seniority.

On the salary claim, the Court found that the respondents’ assertion that the petitioner’s joining was not accepted until 1 July 2013 was insufficiently supported. Although the respondents relied on communications allegedly sent to the petitioner, the record did not establish that those communications had been sent by registered post and returned unserved.

Further, the letter dated 12 July 2013 did not clearly state that the joining had been accepted with effect from 1 July 2013.

Since the factual and documentary position required determination by the competent administrative authority, the Court directed the petitioner to pursue the salary claim through a fresh representation rather than adjudicating the entitlement finally.

With respect to salary for the period from 5 January 2013 to June 2013, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh representation before the competent authority. The authorities were directed to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law.