Court holds that once a dependent accepts a compassionate appointment on a lower post without objection, they cannot later claim a higher post; dismisses writ petition of Avinash Bhatnagar seeking Assistant Traffic Inspector post after joining as Conductor
Jaipur, 9 October 2026 - The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Avinash Bhatnagar, dependent of a deceased employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC), who sought compassionate appointment to the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector (ATI) based on his educational qualifications. The petitioner had earlier accepted appointment on a lower post of Conductor without any objection and served in that capacity for nearly two years before demanding the higher post.
The petitioner's father, Late Shri Jaswant Singh, was employed as a Post Deliveryman with RSRTC and died while in service on 20 May 2010. Following his death, the petitioner initially applied for compassionate appointment to the post of ATI citing his MBA qualification. However, during the pendency of his claim, the guidelines regarding posts eligible for compassionate appointment were amended, removing the ATI post and limiting appointments to four specified posts including Conductor. The petitioner was offered appointment as Conductor, which he accepted and joined on 18 July 2013.
Subsequently, after a further amendment reinstated ATI among eligible posts, the petitioner sought appointment to ATI post, arguing the rules prevailing at the time of his father's death entitled him to that post. When his claim was ignored, he filed the writ petition.
The High Court, led by Justice Bipin Gupta, emphasized that compassionate appointment is a concession aimed at providing immediate financial relief to families of employees who die in harness, and not a vested right or an alternative recruitment mode. The court relied on binding precedents from the Supreme Court of India, including Director of Town Panchayat v. M. Jayabal and State of Karnataka v. V. Somyashree, which establish that once a dependent accepts an appointment on compassionate grounds and joins service, the right to claim a higher post is foreclosed to prevent what the court termed "endless compassion."
Justice Gupta noted that the petitioner had the opportunity to challenge the offer of appointment to the lower post or to accept it while reserving his right to claim a higher post but chose not to do so. The court found that the petitioner's acceptance without protest consummated his right, and no subsequent consideration for a higher post was warranted. The court further clarified that mere possession of higher qualifications does not entitle a dependent to claim a particular or superior post.
The petitioner's reliance on the principle that the rules prevailing on the date of the deceased employee's death govern the claim was acknowledged but held to be inapplicable once the petitioner had accepted the lower post and served for an extended period.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the principle that compassionate appointment is an exception and humanitarian relief rather than a right, dismissed the petition, and confirmed the petitioner's appointment on the post of Conductor as final.
This judgment reiterates the legal position that compassionate appointment is meant to alleviate sudden financial distress and does not guarantee appointment to a post of choice or a higher post than that held by the deceased.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment is a concession and not a vested right; once a dependent accepts appointment on a lower post without protest, the claim for compassionate appointment stands consummated and he cannot later seek appointment to a higher post.
Statutory provision(s):
Compassionate appointment.
Avinash Bhatnagar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, (Raj) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994529
