LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PANCHAYAT & ORS. versus M. JAYABAL & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 12-12-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJESH BINDAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 593 : 2025 INSC 1423
The Director of Town Panchayat & Ors. 
 v. 
M. Jayabal & Anr. Etc.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 12640-12643 of 2025)
12 December 2025
[Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the compassionate appointment of a family 
member on account of death of an employee in service, is as a 
matter of right; whether the dependent family member of a deceased 
employee, after being appointed on a post on compassionate basis, 
can later on seek appointment on a post higher; and whether a 
dependent family member of a deceased employee can seek 
compassionate appointment on a post higher than the post which 
the deceased was holding, on the ground of eligibility. 
Headnotes†
Service law – Compassionate appointment – Appointment 
to higher post – Respondents on account of death of their 
fathers-working as sweepers, initially granted appointment 
on compassionate basis as sweepers, for which application 
was made – After few years they filed writ petitions claiming 
appointment to a higher post-Junior Assistant on the ground 
that they were qualified for the same at the time of the initial 
appointment – Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench 
of the High Court allowed the claim directing their appointment 
on a higher post – Correctness:
Held: Is erroneous and contrary to the spirit of the law – Dependent 
of a deceased employee, though eligible, not entitled to appointment 
at any position on compassionate basis as a matter of right – 
Such appointments, made on purely humanitarian grounds, to be 
viewed as exceptions to the general rules of appointment – Mere 
eligibility of the applicant cannot be reason enough to materialise 
his/her claim for appointment on a higher post – Once a family 
member of the deceased employee was offered appointment on 
compassionate basis, the financial crisis of the family was over – 
Once the right of an applicant to be considered for appointment 
* Author
594
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
on compassionate grounds has been consummated, no further 
consideration warranted, his right stood exercised – Right once 
exercised could not be permitted to be exercised again and 
again by making it an endless exercise – Otherwise, it would 
be a case of ‘endless compassion’ – Such appointment 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 of eligibility – Respondents approached the Court belated 
after they had joined on the post on compassionate basis, as 
such claim to be rejected  – Also claim of parity with another 
employee who had been granted similar benefit, misplaced since 
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 – Foundation of any 
claim based on equity has to be devoid of the element of negative 
discrimination – Illegality committed by an authority cannot be 
validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly 
placed persons – Such illegal orders, will not confer any right 
upon the other person to come to the court and enforce the same 
claiming discrimination – Plea of ignorance by the respondent of 
seeking appointment on a higher post and that a similar relief 
having been granted to others, the respondents should not be 
discriminated against, cannot be entertained – Ignorance of law 
is not an excuse – Negative discrimination cannot be claimed 
if no right can be made out – Impugned judgment set aside.  
[Paras 7.3, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15-24]
Case Law Cited
I.G. (Karmik) v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 INSC 496 : [2007] 
5 SCR 978 : (2007) 6 SCC 162; State of U.P. v. Premlata, 2021 
INSC 619 : [2021] 8 SCR 597 : (2022) 1 SCC 30; State of W.B. v. 
Debabrata Tiwari, 2023 INSC 202 : [2023] 2 SCR 611 : (2025) 
5 SCC 712; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors., 
1994 INSC 189 : [1994] 3 SCR 893: (1994) 4 SCC 138; Tinku v. 
State of Haryana & Ors., 2024 INSC 867 : [2024] 11 SCR 713 : 
2024 SCC Online SC 3292; State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, 
1994 INSC 423 : [1994] Supp. 4 SCR 67 : (1994) 6 SCC 560; 
State of Orissa v. Laxmi Narayan Das, 2023 INSC 619 : [2023] 10 
SCR 1049 : (2023) 15 SCC 273; Jyostnamayee Mishra v. State of 
Odisha, 2025 INSC 87 : [2025] 1 SCR 834 : 2025 SCC Online SC 
117; Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors. v. Anusree 
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.