Govt Employee Appointed On Compassionate Grounds Cannot Claim Higher Post As Matter Of Right: J&K High Court
The court clarified that the aggrieved person would be entitled to promotion in accordance with recruitment rules, and not by virtue of initial compassionate appointment.
Published : March 4, 2026 at 3:29 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that a government employee appointed on compassionate grounds cannot claim a higher post as a matter of right.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem at Srinagar allowed an appeal filed by the J&K government and set aside a 2015 judgment that had directed that Javaid Ahmad Ganai be deemed appointed as Storekeeper from September 13, 2000.
The case traces back more than two decades and revolves around the interpretation of the Jammu and Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994, commonly known as SRO 43.
The appeal, filed by the Jammu and Kashmir government, challenged the relief granted to Ganie, a resident of south Kashmir's Anantnag, who was appointed as Storekeeper in the pay scale of Rs 3050-4910 on compassionate grounds under SRO 43 in the year 2000. However, he was not allowed to join the post as a storekeeper as it was a promotional position under the recruitment rules.
Instead, Ganie was permitted to join a Class IV post in the lower pay scale of Rs 2550-3200. His case for the higher post was forwarded for consideration to the appropriate authorities.
Feeling aggrieved, Ganai approached the High Court in 2006. The Court then directed the Commissioner Secretary, General Administration Department, to examine his claim and pass appropriate orders. The General Administration Department rejected his claim through Government Order No. 589-GAD of 2008 dated April 25, 2008.
"Whereas, appointments made by the Deputy Commissioner, Anantnag are bad in law and therefore cannot become precedence or similar treatment on the ending they were similarly placed, if a wrong has been committed, that cannot justify commission of another wrong," the order noted.
It further declared that his appointment would be deemed to have been made to a Class IV post from September 13, 2000, the date he started discharging duties, and rejected his claim to the higher post.
Ganai challenged the 2008 government order in SWP No. 1951/2009. In July 2015, a Single Judge of the High Court set aside the government order and held: "….Applying the said judgment to the facts of this case, the petitioner shall be deemed to be employed as Store Storekeeper from 13.09.2005. However, the petitioner, having served in Class-IV post, will not be entitled to the salary of the Storekeeper and for all other purposes, he shall be treated as a Storekeeper from 13.09.2005. The petitioner shall be allowed to serve as Storekeeper immediately from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by the respondents."
This direction effectively granted Ganai notional status as Storekeeper, though without back wages. However, the State challenged this decision. The Bench examined the scope of compassionate appointment under SRO 43 and the governing Supreme Court precedents, including State of Uttar Pradesh vs Premlata.
"Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood... The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased," the bench emphasised.
The court framed the central issue as whether appointment to a higher post on compassionate grounds could be claimed as a matter of right. It concluded firmly that it could not.
Referring to Rule 3 of SRO 43, the Bench noted that while the Government in the General Administration Department has discretion to appoint a dependent to a higher non-gazetted post, such power is discretionary and not automatic.
"We are unable to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the ground that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed on a higher post as a matter of right," the bench noted.
The bench also found that Ganai, having accepted appointment to a Class IV post, was estopped from seeking elevation to Storekeeper.
Citing the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs Umrao Singh, the Bench quoted: "He accepted the appointment as L.D.C. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would ever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of ‘endless compassion’."
The court added that the principle of estoppel and acquiescence applied squarely to Ganai's case. The Bench further held that the post of Storekeeper was governed by recruitment rules requiring five years' experience and was a promotional post.
"The learned Single Judge failed to consider the fact that the post of Storekeeper was a promotional post and the appointment to the same would be governed by eligibility conditions," the court ruled in its 9-page judgment.
The respondent, the court said, could only claim promotion in accordance with the recruitment rules and subject to seniority. Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench set aside the July 10, 2015 judgment.
It clarified that Ganai would be entitled to promotion to the post of Storekeeper strictly in accordance with the recruitment rules, and not by virtue of his initial compassionate appointment.
Read More:
