Compassionate appointment — Right stands exhausted upon acceptance of appointment: Once a dependent of a deceased employee is offered and accepts compassionate appointment and joins the post offered, the right to compassionate appointment stands consummated. Thereafter, the dependent cannot claim appointment to a higher post merely on the ground that he/she subsequently satisfies the qualifications for that higher post. [Para 12]

advocatemmmohan

Headnotes — Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams v. Assistant/Shroff Staff & Ors.

W.A. No.609 of 2022 — D. Ramesh & Alapati Giridhar, JJ. — 24.08.2026
2026:APHC:34623

1. Compassionate appointment — Right stands exhausted upon acceptance of appointment:
   Once a dependent of a deceased employee is offered and accepts compassionate appointment and joins the post offered, the right to compassionate appointment stands consummated. Thereafter, the dependent cannot claim appointment to a higher post merely on the ground that he/she subsequently satisfies the qualifications for that higher post. [Para 12]

2. Compassionate appointment — No second consideration for higher post:
   Compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee. Once that relief has been granted and accepted, a subsequent claim for a higher post would amount to “endless compassion” and is impermissible. [Para 12]

3. Compassionate appointment — Eligibility for higher post distinct from selection/appointment:
   Mere eligibility or acquisition of the qualification prescribed for a higher post does not create a right to compassionate appointment to that post. Eligibility to be appointed is distinct from the process of selection/appointment. [Para 12, referring to State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh]

4. Compassionate appointment — Cannot be used as a ladder for career advancement:
   Compassionate appointment is an exceptional measure intended to relieve the family from financial hardship caused by the death of its earning member. It cannot subsequently be used as a mechanism for climbing to a higher post or gaining seniority merely because the employee later becomes qualified for that post. [Para 12]

5. Negative equality — Illegal benefit cannot be claimed as precedent:
   A person cannot claim a higher post merely because a similarly situated employee was wrongly granted such benefit. An illegality committed in favour of one employee cannot be validated or perpetuated by extending the same illegality to others. [Para 12]

6. Article 14 — No equality in illegality:
   A wrong or illegal order passed in favour of a similarly situated person does not confer a corresponding enforceable right upon another person on the ground of discrimination. Authorities cannot be compelled to perpetuate an earlier wrong. [Para 12]

7. Compassionate appointment — Subsequent circular cannot reopen concluded appointment:
   Where employees accepted appointment as Assistant/Shroff under the circular applicable at the time of their appointment and continued in that post for several years without challenging either their appointments or the governing circular, they could not subsequently claim the benefit of a later Board Resolution or circular providing a route to appointment as Junior Assistant. [Para 8]

8. Service law — Applicable conditions at time of appointment:
   Respondent Nos.1 to 10 had been appointed as Assistant/Shroff under the TTD Executive Officer's Circular dated 28.12.2010, which was in force when their appointments were made. Having accepted those appointments and continued without protest, they could not retrospectively invoke the subsequent Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and Circular dated 05.10.2018. [Para 8]

9. Compassionate appointment — Higher qualification acquired subsequently:
   The fact that some employees subsequently acquired graduation or other qualifications required for Junior Assistant did not, by itself, entitle them to appointment to the higher post after they had already accepted compassionate appointment to another post. [Para 12]

10. TTD Board Resolution No.364 — Cannot confer retrospective entitlement:
    Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and the consequential TTD Circular dated 05.10.2018 could not be invoked by persons who had already accepted compassionate appointments as Assistant/Shroff under the earlier regime. [Para 13]

11. Government Circular dated 12.08.2003 — Validity not adjudicated:
    The Division Bench expressly declined to examine the validity of the Government Circular Memo dated 12.08.2003 or the appointments made pursuant thereto, observing that the issue had been implemented throughout the State and the present controversy could be resolved on the narrower question concerning the subsequent claim for a higher post. [Para 11]

12. Writ appeal — Single Judge's direction for Junior Assistant appointment set aside:
    The learned Single Judge had directed appointment of the writ petitioners as Junior Assistants with consequential benefits by applying Board Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and TTD Circular dated 05.10.2018. The Division Bench set aside that order. [Paras 5 & 13]

Important governing proposition

Once compassionate appointment is accepted and the appointee joins the post offered, the right to compassionate appointment is exhausted. Subsequent acquisition of qualification for a higher post does not create a fresh right to compassionate appointment to that higher post; otherwise, it would result in “endless compassion.” [Para 12]

Negative equality — Particularly important

“An illegality committed by an authority cannot be validated and further perpetuated by its extension to other similarly placed persons.” Thus, even if another employee was granted appointment to a higher post in similar circumstances, that erroneous benefit cannot be demanded by others under Article 14. [Para 12]

Final Order

• W.A.No.609 of 2022 — Allowed.

• Order dated 26.04.2022 in W.P.No.7490 of 2019 — Set aside.

• Respondent Nos.1–10 were held not entitled to any benefits under Resolution No.364 dated 28.08.2018 and Circular dated 05.10.2018.

• The notices issued to Respondent Nos.13–64 were set aside.

• The reversion order dated 25.12.2023 concerning Respondent No.12 was set aside.

• The Division Bench expressly stated that it was not deciding the validity of Circular Memo dated 12.08.2003 or the appointments made thereunder.

• No order as to costs. [Para 13]