Once compassionate appointment is implemented under final court orders, retrospective appointment or pay fixation cannot be claimed.

The respondent’s husband, an Assistant Technician in the Chennai Port Trust, died in harness on 5 January 2001. The respondent registered for compassionate appointment but was not appointed. In her first writ petition, W.P. No. 18331 of 2008, the High Court directed the Chennai Port Trust to offer her compassionate appointment in Class III or Class IV service according to her seniority. The direction was affirmed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 2453 of 2011 and by the Supreme Court upon dismissal of SLP (C) No. 29004 of 2012. Pending the SLP, the respondent was appointed on compassionate grounds on 25 June 2013 and continued in service

In a second round of litigation, the respondent sought retrospective appointment and consequential benefits, relying on the treatment granted to Smt. S. Jayachitra. The writ court allowed her claim on 8 March 2023, leading to the present appeal by the Chennai Port Authority

Whether the respondent, after receiving compassionate appointment pursuant to the final orders in the first round of litigation, was entitled to retrospective appointment or retrospective fixation of pay

Whether the relief granted to Smt. S. Jayachitra justified extending identical retrospective benefits to the respondent

Whether the writ court was justified in granting further benefits despite implementation of the earlier judicial directions

The Court applied the principle that compassionate appointment is a concession intended to provide relief to the family of an employee who dies in harness, and not an indefeasible or continuing right to appointment with retrospective service benefits

It further applied the doctrine of finality of litigation and held that, once the earlier orders directing appointment according to the respondent’s seniority had been affirmed by the Supreme Court and implemented by appointing her on 25 June 2013, she could not seek additional relief in a subsequent proceeding

The Court distinguished the Supreme Court’s order in S. Jayachitra’s case, where a specific direction had been issued to relate the appointment back to the date on which similarly placed employees were appointed and to refix pay accordingly. No comparable direction had been issued in the respondent’s case

The Court held that the earlier judicial orders only directed the Chennai Port Trust to offer the respondent compassionate appointment in a suitable post according to her seniority; they did not grant retrospective appointment or retrospective pay fixation

Those orders were affirmed by the Supreme Court and fully implemented through the respondent’s appointment on 25 June 2013

The Court found that the respondent could not rely on the decision in S. Jayachitra’s case because that case involved an express Supreme Court direction granting retrospective appointment and pay fixation, whereas no such direction existed here

Since the respondent had already obtained the relief finally determined in the first round, permitting a further claim based merely on another employee’s treatment would improperly enlarge the original relief and create an undesirable precedent

The writ appeal was allowed, the writ court’s order dated 8 March 2023 in W.P. No. 32528 of 2014 was set aside, and the connected civil miscellaneous petition was closed. No order as to costs was made