Foundation Of Any Claim Based On Equity Has To Be Devoid Of Element Of Negative Discrimination: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court in a compassionate appointment related case, observed that the foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element of negative discrimination.

The Court was hearing eight Civil Appeals arising out of a common Judgment of the Madras High Court passed in the Review Applications.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan emphasised, “… it is evident that the foundation of any claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element of negative discrimination. The respondents in the present case are heirs of the deceased employees who were appointed on compassionate basis upon the death of their fathers. Their appointment, in its own self, was a sufficient relief to serve the actual purpose behind compassionate appointments. The further claim of seeking appointment on a higher post cannot be based on the sole premise that another similarly placed person was granted such benefit.”

The Bench reiterated that an illegality committed by an authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly placed persons.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the Appellants, while Advocate M. Purushothaman appeared for the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The High Court vide the impugned Judgment had directed that the Respondents be given appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. They were initially appointed as sweepers on compassionate basis. The said Judgment upheld the Order of the Single Judge who had directed the Appellants to issue suitable orders or their appointment as Junior Assistants. They were also held entitled to receive salary for the post of a Junior Assistant from the date of the order. The Respondents on account of death of their fathers, who were working as sweepers, were initially granted appointment on compassionate basis as sweepers.

It was in terms of the applications made by them. After huge delay, they preferred Writ Petitions claiming appointment to a higher post namely Junior Assistant raising the plea that they were qualified for the same at the time of the initial appointment. The Single Judge allowed the claim and the Order was then upheld by the Division Bench and the applications for review were also dismissed. Such Orders were under challenge in the Appeals before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above regard, said, “Keeping in view the core objective behind appointment on compassionate basis, as has been discussed in a catena of judgments of this Court, it is well settled that compassionate appointment is a relief against immense financial hardship caused by the sudden and unforeseen loss of the earning member of a family. In such event, when a dependant family member of the deceased employee is provided appointment on compassionate basis, it is done in order to ensure that the family members are not subjected to impoverishment. Therefore, such appointment which is arising out of exceptional circumstances, cannot be used as a ladder to climb up in seniority by claiming a higher post merely on the basis that he/she is eligible for such post.”

The Court was of the view that the claim of the Respondents deserves to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. It further noted that both the Respondents had approached the Court belated after they had joined on the post they were offered appointment on compassionate basis.

“… delay reflects the indolence of a litigant and the Court must scrutinise whether such belated lis must be entertained or not. Therefore, inordinate delay on behalf of any litigant to do an act required by law shall stand in his/her way for getting relief”, it reiterated.

The Court observed that delay in filing of Writ Petition before the High Court is fatal for grant of relief to the party and this principle is more applicable in the cases of compassionate appointments.

“The idea behind compassionate appointment is to take care of immediate financial crisis in the family of the deceased employee. In such case, the delay would mean that the family could survive even after death of the employee, as they may be having another source of income. In such circumstances, the party approaching the court with a significant delay can be denied the relief”, it added.

Negative Discrimination

The Court remarked that no one can approach the Court and base his claim on negative discrimination merely because some relief has been granted to a person who may not be entitled to the same.

“This Court in Tinku’s case (supra) opined that wrongful conferment of a right or claim on someone would not entitle a similar claim to be put forth before a court and nor would the court be bound to accept such a plea”, it noted.

The Court held that the contention of Respondents that they may be appointed on a higher post in view of similar benefit being granted to another person is wholly misplaced and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

“From the law on the issue which we have referred to in the aforesaid paragraphs, it is clearly culled out that illegal orders, passed in case of similarly situated person, will not confer any right upon the other person to come to the court and enforce the same claiming discrimination. Such plea cannot be accepted as the authorities cannot be directed to perpetuate the wrong committed by them. The party in such cases may have different remedies. We are not dilating on the same”, it also said.

Conclusion

The Court said that it is not a matter of selection or choice of an applicant for such a post, rather for the employer to consider various factors and the basic idea is to provide succour to the family to enable them to come out of immediate financial crisis.

“Delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment has also been held to be fatal for the exercise of such a right. … If the facts of the case in hand are considered, in our view, belated applications made by the respondents seeking appointment on a higher post, after they had already been appointed on a lower post, was rightly rejected by the competent authority. The view expressed by learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court directing their appointment on a higher post w.e.f the date of judgement was certainly erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law laid down by this Court on the subject”, it added.

The Court, therefore, concluded that ignorance of law is not an excuse, as a result of which, such plea raised by the Respondents cannot be entertained and negative discrimination cannot be claimed if no right can be made out as per the settled position of law.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals and set aside the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. v. M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1423)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, AORs Purnima Krishna, G. Indira, Advocates M. F. Philip, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin M. Babichen, and Racheeta Chawla.

Respondents: AOR Nikhil Jain, Advocates M. Purushotman, Prafull Singh Chandel, Anirudh Sharma, Srimanta Ray, and Divya Jain.

Click here to read/download the Judgment