/2022 INSC 0196/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
       CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).   1918 ­ 1919  OF 2022
     (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.31144­31145 of 2013)
M. KENDRA DEVI                  ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
AND OTHERS          ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  1920 ­ 1922    OF 2022
(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.35746­35748 of 2015)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeals have been preferred by the officers who are
direct   recruits   selected   as   Assistant   Engineers   after   going   through
1

the   process   of   selection   held   by   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service
Commission(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “Commission”),
claiming   their   seniority   qua   such   of   the   candidates   who   were
appointed   as   Assistant   Engineers   at   different   points   of   time   as
compassionate   appointees   and   prayed   that   in   the   seniority   list   of
Assistant   Engineers   which   came   to   be   published   by   the   State
authorities as on  1 st
  January  2004, the present  batch of appellants
who are direct recruits appointed as Assistant Engineers be ranked
senior to the candidates who were appointed as Assistant Engineers
on compassionate ground.  
3. Their   grievance   primarily   is   that   after   the   process   of   selection
was   initiated   by   issuance   of   an   advertisement   by   the   Commission,
such   of   the   candidates   who   had   either   not   participated   in   the
process   of   open   selection   or   had   failed   to   qualify   but   because   of
losing  their  breadwinner,  have  been  directly  appointed  as  Assistant
Engineers   as   compassionate   appointees   and   are   placed   en   bloc
senior   to   the   direct   recruits   Assistant   Engineers   and   that   is   in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and of Rule 35 of
2

the   Tamil   Nadu   State   and   Subordinate   Services   Rules,
1955(hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 1955”). 
4. Seniority   either   inter   se   or   between   direct   recruits   and
promotees   or   recruitment   made   by   different   sources   is   being
governed by   a  statutory   scheme  of  rules  laying  down   the  principles
according   to   which   the   seniority   list   has   to   be   determined   but
experience shows that it has never been finalized and always remain
a   subject   matter   of   challenge   and   that   challenge   is   not   restricted
upto   the   High   Courts,   but   such   challenges   are   always   settled   after
the final judgment of this Court and this creates a lot of disharmony
amongst the officers and since this Court is also not in a position to
settle   such   matters   at   the   earliest,   delay   remains   inevitable   and
becomes   fatal   to   the   right   of   individual   and   indeed   impairs   the
efficiency,   commitment   and   devotion   with   which   the   employee   is
supposed   to   work   and   discharge   his   public   duty   to   the   satisfaction
of the authority.
5. The   case   before   us   is   also   a   live   illustration   of   this   kind.   The
service condition of the Assistant Engineers who became member of
the   Tamil   Nadu   Highways   Engineering   Service   are   governed   by   the
3

Special Rules to the  Tamil Nadu  Highways Engineering  Service and
the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer   with   which   we   are   presently
concerned is indicated in the Schedule appended thereto in category
(5)   which   provides   the   modes   of   recruitment   to   the   service   which
reads as under:­ 
5. Assistant
Engineers … 1. Direct recruitment; or 
2. Recruitment by transfer – 
(i) from the Junior Engineers who possess B.E.,
Degree   or   a   pass   in   Sections   A   and   B   of   the
A.M.I.E. (India) Examination renamed as a pass
in   Sections   –   A   and   B   of   the   Institution
Examination or from Assistant Engineers in the
Tamil  Nadu   Engineering   Service   working   in   the
Road   Section;   or   from   Assistant   Engineers   in
the   Tamil   Nadu   Engineering   service   working   in
the   Highways   and   Rural   Works   Department   or
from   Assistant   Engineers   who   are   probationers
in the Tamil Nadu Engineering Service; or
EXPLANATION : 
Notwithstanding   anything   contained   in   rule   ­
2(15)   in   Part­I   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   State   and
Subordinate   Service   Rules,   the   appointment   of
such   Assistant   Engineers   from   the   Tamil   Nadu
Engineering   Service   shall   be   regarded   as
recruitment by transfer;
ii.   from   Assistant   Engineers   or   overseers   of   the
Tamil   Nadu   Minor   Irrigation   subordinate
Service working on or before the 1st April 1961
or from panchayat Overseers; or
iii.   from   the   Head   Draughting   Officer   or   Senior
Draughting Officer of the Tamil Nadu Highways
Engineering   Subordinate   Service   who   possess
A.M.I.E. or B.E., degree with service for a period
4

of   not   less   than   three   years   in   the   Tamil   Nadu
Highways Engineering Subordinate Service; or 
iv.   for   special   reasons   recruitment   by   transfer
from any other service.
          Provided   that   no   Minor   Irrigation   Overseer
taken   over   to   the   Highways   and   Rural   Works
Department   by   recruitment   by   transfer   of
Overseer   recruited   direct,   shall   be   eligible   for
appointment   to   the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer
unless   his   name   has   been   included   in   the
seniority   list   maintained   by   the   Chief   Engineer
(Highways   and   Rural   Works   Department).
Persons   who   are   qualified   and   fit   for
recruitment   by   transfer   shall   be   selected   from
the   said   list   for   appointment   as   Assistant
Engineers.
          Provided   further   that   Assistant   Engineers
may,   in   individual   cases   be   temporarily
appointed   as   Senior   Draughting   Officer,
Draughting Officer or Junior Draughting Officer
in the office of th Chief Engineer (Highways and
Rural   Works)   by   the   Chief   Engineer   (Highways
and Rural Works) according to the exigencies of
service   without   prejudice   to   their   appointment
as   Assistant   Engineers   and   the   Assistant
Engineers   so   appointed   shall   draw   the   pay
admissible   to   them   as   Assistant   Engineers   as
long   as   they   are   retained   as   Senior   Draughting
Officer,   Draughting   Officer   or   Junior
Draughting Officer as the case may be;
     
        Provided also that Assistant Engineers may,
in individual cases, be temporarily appointed as
Senior Draughting Officer, Draughting Officer or
Junior   Draughting   Officer   according   to
exigencies   of   service   without   prejudice   to   their
appointment as Assistant Engineers ­
(i)   by   the   Superintending   Engineer   concerned
with   the   approval   of   the   Chief   Engineer
(Highways and Rural Works) in his circle;
5

(ii)   by   the   Chief   Engineer   (Highways   and   Rural
Works)   in   respect   of   appointment   in   the   Office
of   the   Chief   Engineer   (Highways   and   Rural
Works)   and   the   Assistant   Engineers   so
appointed   shall   draw   the   pay   admissible   to
them as Assistant Engineers so long as they are
retained   as   Senior   Draughting   Officer,
Draughting Officer or Junior Draughting Officer
as the case may be :
        Provided   also   that   the   Draughting   Officers,
Junior   Draughting   Officers   or   Overseer   in   the
Highways   and   Rural   Works   Department   who
have acquired A.M.I.E., or B.E., degree after the
2 nd
  August   1980   shall   not   be   eligible   for
appointment   as   Assistant   Engineers   in   the
Highways   and   Rural   Works   Department   and
they   shall   be   appointed,   along   with   fresh
candidates   appointed   by   direct   recruitment,   to
the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer   in   the   Tamil
Nadu Highways Engineering Service.
6. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment impugned passed
by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   of   Madras   dated   22 nd
January, 2013.   They are direct recruits of first batch selected after
going   through   the   process   of   selection   initiated   in   the   year   1991­
1992   and   the   second   batch   in   the   year   1993­1995   by   the
Commission but they were appointed in the year 1995 and 1998 and
their names are mentioned at Sr. Nos.194, 288, 336, 456 and 571 in
the   seniority   list   of   Assistant   Engineers   as   on   1 st
  January,   2004
6

published by the respondent State on 15 th
 April, 2004 which came to
be determined in terms of Rule 35 (aa) of the Rules, 1955.
7. At   the   same   time,   the   Government   issued   G.O.   No.225   dated
15 th
  February,   1972   in   the   first   instance   providing   compassionate
appointment   in   the   services   which   are   outside   the   purview   of   the
Commission   but   that   came   to   be   later   amended   by   G.O.   No.1119
dated   20 th  
May,   1981   permitting   to   appoint   qualified
professionals/dependents on temporary basis to the technical posts
coming   under   the   purview   of   the   Commission   with   a   proviso   that
such   compassionate   appointees   have   to   appear   later   before   the
Commission   in   the   open   competition   for   regular   appointment.   But
G.O.  No.1119   dated  20 th  
May,  1981   came  to  be  further   modified  by
G.O.   No.156   dated   16 th
  July,   1993   permitting   compassionate
appointees who are technically qualified dependents to be appointed
on   regular   basis   or   such   of   the   compassionate   appointees   who   are
appointed prior  thereto, to  get their  service regularized after  getting
concurrence   from   the   Commission   in   terms   of   Regulation   16(b)   of
the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission Regulations, 1954.
7

 8. In   consequence   thereof,   such   of   the   candidates   who   were
temporarily   appointed   on   compassionate   basis   pursuant   to   G.O.
dated   20 th
  May,   1981   stood   regularized   w.e.f.   16 th
  July,   1993,   the
date  on  which  the  revised  G.O.  became effective  and those who  are
appointed subsequent to G.O. dated 16 th
 July, 1993 were considered
to   be   regular   appointees   from   the   date   of   initial   appointment   as
Assistant Engineers on compassionate ground.
9. All   candidates   who   were   appointed   on   compassionate   ground
as   Assistant   Engineers   are   falling   under   two   categories:­   (i)   those
compassionate   appointees   as   Assistant   Engineers   who   were
appointed   initially   on   temporary   basis   after   20 th
  May,   1981   and
stood   regularized   w.e.f.   16 th
  July,   1993   and   became   member   of
service;   and   (ii)   those   who   are   compassionate   appointees   after   16 th
July,   1993   and   their   initial   appointment   itself   is   considered   to   be
regular   appointment   for   all   practical   purposes   and   they   became
member of service from the date of entry into service. The extracts of
G.O.   No.1119   dated   20 th
  May,   1981   and   G.O.   No.156   dated   16 th
July, 1993 are reproduced hereunder:­
8

“GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU 
      ABSTRACT
Employment Assistants – Employment assistance to the Dependants of
deceased   Government   Servants   –   Appointment   to   the   dependants
according to their educational qualifications – Orders – Issued
LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT 
G.O.Ms. No. 1119  Dated : 20.05.1981 
Read Again 
1. G.O.Ms.No. 225, Labour and Employment dated 15.02.72 
2. G.O.Ms.No. 560, Labour and Employment dated 03.08.77.
 Read also: 
3. From the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission 
Letter No. 8301 / B2 / 77 dated 28.12.77. 
4. Govt. Letter No. 157 / N­I / 78­5, dated 22.07.78. 
5. From the Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission 
Letter No. Lr.No. 8301 / B2 /77 dated 02.09.78. 
**********
ORDER:­ 
In the G.O. first read above, the Government  have permitted the
recruitment   of   son   /   unmarried   daughter   and   near   relative   of   the
Government   servant   who   died   in   harness   without   reference   to
Employment Exchange to all the posts when fall outside the purview of
the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service   Commission   subject   to   certain
conditions. 
2.  In   the   G.O.   second   read   above,   the   above   concession   was
extended to families of the deceased Government Servants who died in
harness   prior   to   15­2­72   and   the   concession   was   made   applicable   for
the   posts   within   the   purview   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service
Commission also. It was also ordered therein that the dependant of the
deceased   Government   servant   can   be   appointed   in   any   department   if
the qualifications of the applicant do not permit his / her appointment
to   a   post   in   the   same   department   in   which   his   parent   or   husband   or
9

wife served or if he/she possesses better qualifications for appointment
in   the   outside   department   provided   the   Head   of   the   other   Department
also   gives   his   concurrence.   The   dependant   should   however   apply   for
appointment only to the office in which the Government servant was in
service at the time of his death, so that office can verify the facts in the
petition like, date of death, the indigent circumstances of the family etc.
In   the   Government   letter   fourth   read   above,   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public
Service   Commission   was   informed   that   the   indigent   circumstances
under   with   the   family   of   the   Government   servant   died   in   harness   and
the   destitute   nature   might   warrant   the   appointment   commensurate   to
the extent possible with the Educational / Technical qualification of the
individual   and   that   the   appointment   could   be   made   available   in   any
department,   and   hence   the   orders   issued   in   G.O.Ms.No.   560   Labour
and Employment dt. 3­8­77 in this regard need no revision.
3. In the letter third and fifth read above, the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission has express its view that the subject of the Government is
to provide immediate means of livelihood when the bread­winner dies in
harness  and  that   it   would  be  more  than  sufficient  if  a  close  relative  of
the   deceased   is   provided   with   employment   in   a   POST   NOT   HIGHER
THAN   THAT OF   A  JUNIOR  ASSISTANT.  The  commission  has  also  held
that  it  would however, be open to the candidate, who is qualified for  a
higher   post,   to   apply   to   it   through   normal   course.   The   Commission   is
also   of   the  view   that   the   orders   issued   in   the   G.O.Ms.No.  560,   Labour
and   Employment,   dated   03.8.77   may   result   in   the   appointment   or   an
individual   possessing   a   degree   outside   the   normal   course,   as   Deputy
Collector   or   to   similar   posts.   If   a   graduate   is   appointed   as   Deputy
Collector   or   Deputy   Superintending   of   Police   or   to  similar   posts   and   if
another   graduate   is   appointed   only   as   Junior   Assistant   taking   into
account   the   indigent   circumstances   of   the   family   of   the   deceased,   it
would   amount   to   discrimination.   The   Commission   has,   therefore,
requested   the   Government   to   examine   the   matter   in   detail   and   issue
suitable orders on the suggestion made by it. 
4. The Government have carefully examined the above suggestion of the
Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. They consider that it would be
proper   and   fair   to   appoint   the   candidate   with   reference   to   the
qualifications   possessed   by   him   /   he   and   that   it   will   not   be
administrative   expedient   to   appoint   the   candidate   possessing
technical   /   professional   Qualifications   like   B.E.   M.B.B.S.   etc.,   to   the
post   of   Junior   Assistant.   The   Government   therefore,   in   partial
modification   of   the   orders   issued   in   G.O.Ms.No.   560   Labour   and
10

Employment   dt.   3.8.77   direct   that   the   dependant   of   the   deceased
Government   servant   who   possess   the   technical   and   professional
qualification be appointed temporarily without referring to Employment
Exchange   and   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service   Commission   to   the   initial   or
starting   category   of   post   for   which   his   qualifications   are   the   minimum
prescribed,   either   in   the   department   where   the   parent   at   the   time   of
his / her death or in any other departments, in which such posts exist,
by   way   or   illustration,   if   the   dependants   of   the   deceased   Government
Servants   possess   B.E.   or   M.B.B.S.   or   B.Sc   (Agri)   Degree   they   may   be
appointed   as  Assistant  Engineer,   Civil   Assistant   Surgeons   and   Deputy
Agricultural   Officers   respectively   temporarily.   Like   wise   Diploma
holders   will   be   appointed   to   the   lowest   category   in   the   concerned
subordinate   service.   All   such   candidates   subsequently   shall   apply   to
the   TNPSC   in   the   normal   channel   and   get   selected   for   regular
appointment   in   the   post.   As   regards   the   dependants   of   the   deceased
Government servants who possess suitable requisite qualification other
than   technical   /professional   they   shall   be   appointed   as   Junior
Assistant regularly without reference to Employment Exchange subject
to the concurrence of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission being
obtained   under   the   latter   of   regulation   16(b)   of   the   TNPSC   regulation
1954. 
5) This order take effect from the issue of the Government order. 
Sd/­ 
Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment Department
 
      (BY ORDER OF THE GOVENOR) 
R. VARADARAJULU,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 
To, 
The All Heads of Department.”
“ GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU 
ABSTRACT 
PUBLIC   SERVICES   –   Appointment   on   compassionate   grounds   of
procedure   for   appointment   of   a   dependant   who   possess   technical   /
11

professional   qualifications   –   Regularisation   of   services   in   consultation
with Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission – Orders – Issued.
LABOUR AND EMPLYOMENT DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.156  Dated:  16.07.93  
Read:­
1.G.O.Ms.No.1119 Labour and Employment 20.05.81 
2. G.O.Ms.No.23 Labour and Employment dated 10.2.93 
Read Also:­ 
3. Tamil  Nadu  Public  Service Commission,  Madras  Lr.no.1089/E4/92
dated 22.5.92. 
*********
ORDER:­ 
In the Government order first read above it has been ordered that the
dependant   of   a   deceased   Government   Servant   with   technical   or
professional   qualification   be   appointed   temporarily   to   the   initial   or
starting  category  of a  post  for   which  his qualification is  the  minimum
prescribed   in   the   Service   Rules.   It   has   also   been   ordered   that   such
appointment would only to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission,
subsequently   in   the   normal   channel   and   get   themselves   selected   for
regular appointment in the post. 
2.  The   inherent   risk   in   this   procedure   is   the   possibility   of   non­
selection   of   the   dependant   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service
Commission in the normal channel. He/she will then lose the job and
thus   defeating   the   very   purpose   for   which   this   scheme   had   been
formulated. It would also run counter to the Government’s instruction
that   persons   appointed   under   compassionate   grounds   should   not   be
ousted.   Once   the   Government   recognise   the   need   to   provide
employment   consistent   with   the   qualifications   possessed   by   the
candidate,   it   does   not   seem   fair   to   put   one   class   of   persons   alone   in
jeopardy   merely   because   they   get   appointment   as   Engineers,   Civil
Assistant   Surgeons   etc.   on   account   of   higher   qualification   possessed
by them.
12

3.  The Government  have  re­examined  the  existing  procedure  and
addressed the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for its views. The
Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service   Commission   has   in   its   letter   read   above
agreed   to   dispense   with   the   distinction   mentioned   above.   The
Government   therefore   direct   that   the   orders   issued   in   the   G.O.   first
read above and these issued in Para 11 of the G.O. Second read above
are partially modified to the effect that in the matter of appointment on
compassionate grounds, the distinction made in respect of technically
or   professionally   qualified   candidates   be   dispensed   with.   The
Government   direct   that   the   dependants   of   deceased   Government
Servants   who   are   technically   or   professionally   qualified   be   appointed
by   the   appointing   authorities   concerned,   in   the   lowest   category   of
post/ or which his/ her qualification is the minimum prescribed in the
relevant   service   rules   for   direct   recruitment,   temporarily   in   the   first
instance, provided there are vacancies and the condition described for
appointment   on   compassionate  grounds   are  satisfied.   Thereafter   their
services   will   be   regularised   with   effect   from   date   of   appointment   after
obtaining   the   concurrence   of   the   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service
Commission under latter part of Regulation 16(b) of Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission Regulations, 1954. 
4.  In   the   cases   of   dependants   of   technically   and   professionally
qualified   who   have   already   been   appointed   subject   to   the   condition
that they will have to get themselves selected by the Tamil Nadu Public
Service   Commission,   in   the   normal   course,   their   services   may   be
regularised   with   effect   from   the   date   of   issue   of   this   order,   after
obtaining   the   concurrence   of   Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service   Commission
under  latter  part of Regulation 16(b) of the Tamil Nadu Public Service
Commission Regulations, 1954. 
                            (BY ORDER OF THE GOVERNOR)
R.VARADARAJUL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT 
To 
All Heads of Department. 
Sd/­ 
Superintendent”
13

10. Despite the judgment of this Court reported in   Umesh Kumar
Nagpal   vs.   State   of   Haryana   and   Others 1
  decided   on   04 th
  May,
1994   wherein   it   was   specifically   held   that   compassionate
appointments shall be restricted to  Class III and  Class IV or  Group
‘C’   and   Group   ‘D’   as   per   the   nomenclature,   the   State   Government
still   allowed   this   policy   to   continue   and   put   restrictions   on
compassionate   appointments   confined   to   Group   ‘C’   and   Group   ‘D’
posts   by   its   G.O.   No.61   dated   19 th
  July,   2006.   As   a   corollary,   this
Court can take a judicial notice that even after the judgment of this
Court   in   Nagpal’s   case   (decided   on   04 th
  May,   1994)   which   indeed
became   the   law   and   has   a   binding   force   under   Article   141   of   the
Constitution,   still   the   Government   failed   to   take   cognizance   and
allowed this practice of making compassionate appointment to Class
II posts which was completely prohibited by this Court upto the date
till G.O. stood revised on 19 th
 July, 2006. 
11. The seniority list of Assistant Engineers for the first time as on
1 st
  January, 2004 came to be published by the State respondent on
15 th
  April,   2004.   Assistant   Engineers   who   were   appointed   under
1   (1994) 4 SCC 138
14

compassionate ground initially on adhoc basis and regularized w.e.f.
16 th
  July,   1993   have   been   separately   categorized   and   their   names
are   shown   in   the   seniority   list   from   Sr.   Nos.172   to   181   and   the
second   batch   of   candidates   who   were   appointed   under
compassionate ground undisputedly after the judgment of this Court
in   Nagpal’s   case (supra)   in   the   year   1995   or   thereafter,   have   been
shown   in   a   separate   block   commencing   from   Sr.Nos.288­307   and
thereafter, the candidates who were selected through open selection
in   reference   to   the   process   of   selection   initiated   in   the   year   1991­
1992   came   to   be   appointed   in   the   year   1995   and   the   selection
process   of   second   batch   of   candidates   initiated   in   the   year   1993­
1995   came   to   be   appointed   in   the   year   1998.   Since   the   direct
recruits   of   the   said   period   became   junior   to   compassionate
appointees in the seniority list published by the State respondent as
on 1 st
 January 2004, that became the subject matter of challenge at
the behest of the direct recruits Assistant Engineers by filing of their
writ petitions before the High Court of Madras.
12. Initially, when the writ petitions were filed at their instance, the
very   appointment   of   compassionate   appointees   as   Assistant
15

Engineers was questioned and consequently, it was prayed that writ
petitioners   be   placed   higher   in   seniority   qua   compassionate
appointees.
13. The   learned   Single   Judge   dismissed   the   writ   petitions   on   the
premise   that   the   compassionate   appointments   were   made   initially
pursuant to G.O. dated 20 th
  May, 1981 and later by G.O. dated 16 th
July,   1993   and   are   not   open   to   challenge   at   a   belated   stage   after
such   a   long   lapse   of   time   and   that   was   the   reason   which   prevailed
upon the learned Single  Judge  not  to  interfere in  the  appointments
of   compassionate   appointees   as   Assistant   Engineers   in   the
interregnum   period   and   further   it   was   held   that   seniority   is
consequential and assigned  from the date of regular appointment in
terms of Rule 35(aa) of Rules, 1955 being strictly in accordance with
the rules and needs no interference.  
14. On   appeal   being   preferred   at   the   instance   of   the   present
appellants   before   the   Division   Bench,   the   Division   Bench   in   its
impugned   judgment   indeed   has   recorded   its   anguish   and   strong
exception   regarding   the   manner   in   which   such   appointments   are
made   in   the   interregnum   period   to   the   posts   of   Assistant   Engineer
16

on compassionate ground overlooking the judgment of this Court in
Nagpal’s   case   (supra)   but   keeping   the   humanitarian   consideration
and   the   fact   that   much   water   is   flown   in   the   Ganges   and   such
compassionate   appointments   being   made   in   accordance   with   the
G.O dated 20 th
 May, 1981 followed by G.O. dated 16 th
 July 1993, the
Division   Bench   was   not   inclined   to   interfere   and   accordingly,
dismissed their appeals by judgment impugned dated 22 nd
  January,
2013, which is a subject matter of challenge in appeals before us.
15. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   with   usual   vehemence   at
their   command   submit   that   compassionate   appointments   are
exception   to   the   open   selection   and   is   not   a   regular   mode   of
recruitment   prescribed   under   the   statutory   scheme   of   rules   and
undisputedly,   the   present   batch   of   compassionate   appointees   were
appointed   on   adhoc   basis   merely   on   the   basis   of   their   academic
qualifications  and  the first batch  of compassionate appointees were
regularized w.e.f. 16 th
 July, 1993 and the second batch from the date
of  appointment  in  contradistinction   to  the  regular  selection  held  by
the   Commission   and   the   time   consumed   in   completing   the   process
of   selection   was   beyond   control   of   the   applicants   and   their
17

appointments are later made on the recommendations made by  the
Commission   in   the   year   1995   or   1998   and   at   least,   such
compassionate appointees cannot have a march over them.
16. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   compassionate
appointment   on   the   posts   of   Assistant   Engineer   from   its   inception
was   in   violation   of   Articles   14   and   16   of   the   Constitution   with   a
limited   exception   being   carved   out   to   provide   solace   to   get   over   the
financial   crisis   who   have   lost   their   breadwinner   and   can   be
compensated   by   offer   of   compassionate   appointment   to   the   post   in
the   category   of   Group   ‘C’   and   Group   ‘D’   and   that   too   because   of
medical   invalidation   of   the   breadwinner   of   the   family   and   such
compassionate appointments cannot be a boon to them and that too
overstepping the rights of such of the applicants who are appointed
through open selection after going through a cumbersome procedure
of competitive selection process held by the Commission. 
17. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that second
batch   of   compassionate   appointments   undisputedly,   were   made   in
the   year   1995   onwards   and   by   that   time,   this   Court   came   heavily
upon   the   Governments   in   making   appointment   on   compassionate
18

ground in Class I/II services and by the intervention of this Court in
Nagpal’s   case (supra) ,   it   was   finally   held   that   the   compassionate
appointments shall confine to the posts of Class III and Class IV and
such   appointments   cannot   be   permitted   to   be   a   boon   in   seeking
appointments in Class I and Class II posts.
18. Learned   counsel   further   submits   that   despite   the   judgment   of
this   Court   became   a   law   and   binding   upon   the   State   Governments
under Article 141 of the Constitution, still appointments made in the
year   1995   &   onwards   in   Class   II   to   the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer,
are ex­facie illegal and the explanation tendered by the Government
regarding   such   compassionate   appointments   is   nothing   but   a   lame
excuse   and   an   eye   wash   and   the   appellants   became   aggrieved   only
when   they   were   placed   higher   in   seniority   which   came   to   be
published   as   on   1 st
  January,   2004   and,   at   least,   in   the   given   facts
and circumstances, delay in no manner could be attributed to them
and thus the finding which has been recorded by the learned Single
Judge  and  affirmed  by   the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  under
the   impugned   judgment   is   not   sustainable   in   law   and   should   be
interfered by this Court. 
19

19. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   in   alternate,   submits   that
looking to the tenure of service being rendered by the compassionate
appointees, there may be a reason for which their appointment may
not be likely to be interfered with but at the same time, it cannot be
saved   at   the   cost   of   causing   injury   to   the   present   appellants   who
were appointed through open selection which took two to three years
in   its   finalization   and   their   appointments   made   after   the   entry   of
compassionate appointees into service in no manner can be read in
detriment   to   their   interest.     At   least,   to   this   extent,   the   present
appellants   are   entitled   to   save   their   seniority   qua   compassionate
appointees who have no legitimate right to be retained in service and
to serve as Assistant Divisional Engineers into service.
20. Per   contra,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents,   while
supporting   the   finding   recorded   by   the   High   Court   under   the
impugned   judgment   submits   that   compassionate   appointments   are
made in accordance with the Government Order issued from time to
time and such of the compassionate appointees joined service in the
year   1985   or   1986   or   thereafter   and   despite   serving   for   sufficient
long time, they were regularized after their suitability being adjudged
20

pursuant   to   G.O.   dated   16 th
  July,   1993   and   accordingly,   seniority
has   been  assigned  to   them  and   later   appointees  were   substantively
appointed   from   the   date   of   appointment.   At   the   same   time,   the
present   appellants   have   joined   service   and   taken   berth   in   the
department   much   after   their   service   being   regularized   and   became
member   of   service.     Thus,   in   all   circumstances,   the   seniority
assigned to the compassionate appointees is in accordance with the
scheme of Rule 35(aa) of Rules 1955.
21. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that after
they   have   served   for   more   than   two   to   three   decades   and   at   this
belated   stage,   it   may   not   be   open   for   the   appellants   either   to
question their appointment or consequential seniority to tinker with
and   submits   that   even   their   date   of   regularisation/date   of
appointment is 16 th
  July, 1993 or thereafter and, at the same time,
the direct recruits who are in the first batch of appointees of 1991­
1992 are appointed in the year 1995, and the second batch of direct
recruits whose selection process was initiated in the year 1993­1995
were   appointed   in   the   year   1998   or   thereafter.     As   such,   by   no
stretch   of   imagination,   such   direct   recruits   could   claim   seniority
21

above  the  compassionate  appointees  who   joined  service  much   prior
thereto   and   became   member   of   service   on   being   regularized   by   the
competent authority.
22. In   addition,   learned   counsel   for   the   State   submits   that   since
the   compassionate   appointments   have   been   made   in   accordance
with   the   G.O.   issued   by   the   Government   from   time   to   time   and
seniority list of Assistant Engineers was accordingly published as on
1 st
  January  2004, which is in conformity  with the scheme of Rules,
1955   and   after   being   affirmed   by   the   High   Court   under   the
impugned judgment, needs no further interference by this Court.
23. After   the   matter   being   heard   by   this   Court   and   before   we
conclude   that   matter,   we   called   upon   the   State   counsel   by   order
dated 23 rd
  February, 2022 to file affidavit indicating as to what was
the reason that after the judgment of this Court reported in  Nagpal’s
case   (supra) (decided on 04 th
  May, 1994) wherein, it was specifically
held that compassionate appointment shall be restricted to Class III
and   Class   IV   or   Group   ‘C’   and   Group   ‘D’,   as   the   case   may   be,   still
the Government allowed this policy of making appointments in Class
II to continue, until withdrawn by G.O. dated 19 th
 July, 2006.
22

 24. Pursuant thereto, explanation has been furnished by the State
respondent   in   paragraph   (6)   of   the   explanation   and   it   has   been
stated that the judgment of this Court in   Nagpal’s case   (supra) was
communicated to the State Government by the Law Department vide
its   letter   dated   27 th
  September,   2001   and   pursuant   thereto,   the
Government   put   a   ban   on   compassionate   appointments   except
leaving   certain   category   of   posts   such   as   teachers,   doctors   and
police   constabulary   being   essential   posts   by   letter   dated   29 th
November, 2001 and it has been informed by the learned counsel for
the   State   that   four   compassionate   appointments   in   the   teachers
category   of Class II  were made and  later  the  decision  was  taken on
19 th
  July,   2006   to   restrict   the   compassionate   appointments   to   the
posts of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ category.
25. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with   their
assistance perused the material available on record.
26. Before we proceed, we make it clear  that notice was issued by
this   Court   on   20 th
  September,   2013   and   the   limited   issue   that
remain   open   for   consideration   is   confined   to   inter   se   seniority   of
23

compassionate   appointees   vis­a­viz   direct   recruits.   The   order   dated
20 th
 September, 2013 passed by this Court reads as under:­
“Delay condoned. 
Heard Mr. P. P. Rao, learned senior counsel in support of this
special   leave   petition.   Mr.   Rao   states   that   the   petitioner   is   not
challenging   the   appointment   of   respondent   Nos.5   to   37.   He,
however,   states   that   though   they   were   appointed   prior   to   the
petitioner,   their   regularisation   has   come   subsequent   to   her
appointment by G.O. dated 26.9.1996 with retrospective effect. The
petitioner is aggrieved because though these respondents have been
appointed   on   compassionate   basis,   in   a   highly   irregular   manner
they are being given seniority over her though she is a direct recruit
on merit. He is confining this petition only to the issue of seniority.
In   view   thereof,   issue   notice   on   the   special   leave   petition.   Issue
notice on the prayer for interim relief also.”
27. It is not disputed that the post of Assistant Engineer is in Class
II category and as per the scheme of Rules 1955, it is to be filled by
direct recruitment or through recruitment by transfer. These are two
modes of recruitment permissible for holding regular selection under
the   scheme   of   rules   and   so   far   as   the   appointment   through   direct
recruitment   is   concerned,   it   is   to   be   made   strictly   through   open
selection by the Commission. 
28. It   is   well   settled   that   the   compassionate   appointment   is   an
exception   to   the   general   rule   of   public   employment   through   open
selection   in   conformity   of   Articles   14   &   16   of   the   Constitution   and
24

the   object   of   granting   compassionate   appointment   is   to   enable   the
family   to   tide   over   certain   crisis   and   to   grant   relief   to   the   family
against   financial   destitution   who   have   lost   their   breadwinner.
Compassionate   appointments   are   invariably   made   looking   to   the
eligibility of the dependent seeking employment and the post held by
the   deceased   who   was   the   member   of   service   and   this   Court   can
take a judicial notice that appointments were earlier made in Class II
posts which are under purview of the Commission and that was the
reason for which this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) (decided on 04 th
May,   1994)   came   heavily   while   holding   that   compassionate
appointment is not a vested right and held that such appointments
shall   be   restricted   to   the   posts   in   Class   III   and   Class   IV   with   an
object   to   give   relief   to   the   family   of   the   deceased   from   financial
destitution who have suddenly lost their breadwinner and to help it
to   get   over   the   emergency.   In   Nagpal’s   case (supra),   this   Court   held
as under:­
“2.   The   question   relates   to   the   considerations   which   should   guide
while   giving   appointment   in   public   services   on   compassionate
ground.   It   appears   that   there   has   been   a   good   deal   of   obfuscation
on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should
be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and
merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is
25

permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are
at   liberty   to   follow   any   other   procedure   or   relax   the   qualifications
laid   down   by   the   rules   for   the   post.   However,   to   this   general   rule
which   is   to   be   followed   strictly   in   every   case,   there   are   some
exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain
contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of
an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and
without   any   means   of   livelihood.   In   such   cases,   out   of   pure
humanitarian   consideration   taking   into   consideration   the   fact   that
unless   some   source   of   livelihood   is   provided,   the   family   would   not
be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to
provide   gainful   employment   to   one   of   the   dependants   of   the
deceased   who   may   be   eligible   for   such   employment.   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   a
member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the
deceased.   What   is   further,   mere   death   of   an   employee   in   harness
does   not   entitle   his   family   to   such   source   of   livelihood.   The
Government   or   the   public   authority   concerned   has   to   examine   the
financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is
satisfied,   that   but   for   the   provision   of   employment,   the   family   will
not   be   able   to   meet   the   crisis   that   a   job   is   to   be   offered   to   the
eligible member of the family.  The posts in Classes III and IV are the
lowest posts in non­manual and manual categories and hence they
alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to
relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over
the   emergency.   The   provision   of   employment   in   such   lowest   posts
by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is
not   discriminatory.   The   favourable   treatment   given   to   such
dependant   of   the   deceased   employee   in   such   posts   has   a   rational
nexus   with   the   object   sought   to   be   achieved,   viz.,   relief   against
destitution.   No other   posts  are  expected  or   required  to  be   given  by
the   public   authorities   for   the   purpose.   It   must   be   remembered   in
this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased
there   are   millions   of   other   families   which   are   equally,   if   not   more
destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of
the   deceased   employee   is   in  consideration  of   the   services   rendered
by   him   and   the   legitimate   expectations,   and   the   change   in   the
status   and   affairs,   of   the   family   engendered   by   the   erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned.”
       (emphasis supplied)
26

29. In   the   instant   case,   the   compassionate   appointments   were
made to the post of Assistant Engineer which is categorized in Class
II   but   undisputedly   were   made   in   terms   of   the   Government   Order
dated  20 th
  May, 1981  followed  with  G.O.  dated  16 th
  July,  1993  and
the   State   Government   finally   withdrew   these   G.Os.   pursuant   to
which   compassionate   appointments   were   restricted   to   Class   III   and
Class   IV   in   compliance   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Nagpal’s
case  (supra) by its G.O. dated 19 th
 July, 2006. 
30. It is also not disputed that the compassionate appointments on
the post of Assistant Engineer made prior to 16 th
 July, 1993 were on
adhoc/temporary basis and are regularized by a single stroke of pen
pursuant to G.O. dated 16 th
  July, 1993, and all later compassionate
appointments on the post of Assistant Engineer made after 16 th
 July,
1993   were   considered   to   be   regular   appointments   from   the   date   of
initial appointment  and since  the seniority  has to  be assigned from
the   date   of   regular   appointment   in   terms   of   Rule   35(aa)   of   the
scheme of Rules 1955, in consequence thereof, the seniority to each
of the compassionate appointee as Assistant Engineer was assigned
27

from   the   date   of   regular   appointment   when   published   as   on   1 st
January, 2004.
31. This   fact   cannot   be   ruled   out   that   the   compassionate
appointments   made   on   the   post   of   Assistant   Engineer   after   the
judgment   of   this   Court   in   Nagpal’s   case   (supra)   which   became   the
law and was binding upon the State Governments under Article 141
of   the   Constitution   but   still   it   is   unfortunate   that   Government   of
Tamil Nadu continued to make such compassionate appointments in
Group ‘B’ posts thereafter from the year 1995 onwards which indeed
were   de   hors   the   judgment   of   this   Court   but   still   allowed   such
compassionate appointments to continue who later became member
of   service   and   by   this   time,   they   are   serving   for   the   last   more   than
two   decades.     At   the   same   time,   their   appointments   have   not   been
interfered   at   any   stage   in   the   course   of   proceedings   initiated   at   the
instance   of   the   appellants   and   it   is   informed   that   they   are   further
promoted and few of them are on the verge of retirement.
32. If we look into the seniority list of Assistant Engineers which is
a   cause   of   grievance   raised   by   the   appellants,   the   first   batch   of
Assistant   Engineers   appointed   on   various   dates   under
28

compassionate ground are indicated from Sr. Nos.172 to 174.  These
applicants   were   appointed   initially   from   14 th
  December,   1988   to
9 th
  September,   1992   and   were   regularized   by   a   single   stroke   w.e.f.
16 th
  July,   1993   and   rest   of   them   from   Sr.   Nos.175   to   181.   Later,
compassionate   appointees   are   indicated   from   Sr.   Nos.288­307   who
were appointed from 20 th
  February, 1995 to 12 th
  January, 1998 and
their   initial   appointment   was   considered   to   be   the   regular
appointment.     As   regards   the   direct   recruits,   they   are   indicated   in
the   category   of   1991­1992   (Tamil   Nadu   Public   Service   Commission
Selection),   shown   from   Sr.   Nos.182­202   who   were   appointed   from
03 rd
  May,   1995   to   07 th
  March,   1996,   undisputedly,   much   after   the
regular appointments of compassionate appointees in the first batch.
So   far   as   direct   selection   of   second   batch   is   concerned,   they   are
shown   in   the   category   of   the   year   1993­1995   (Tamil   Nadu   Public
Service   Commission   Selection)   and   their   names   are   indicated   from
Sr. Nos.308­475 and all were appointed from 29 th
  January, 1998 to
13 th
 October, 1999. 
33. To   make   it   further   clear   so   far   as   the   candidates   selected
through the Commission are concerned, their seniority in the cadre
29

of   Assistant   Engineer   has   been   assigned   according   to   the   order   of
inter   se   merit   assigned   by   the   Commission   but   placed   below   the
compassionate   appointee   Assistant   Engineers   who   are   indeed
regularly   appointed   much   prior   to   the   entry   of   direct   recruits
appointed   as   Assistant   Engineers   on   their   open   selection   through
the Commission.
34. The seniority list of Assistant Engineers, for the first time, came
to   be  published  as  on  1 st
  January, 2004  which  has  been  placed  on
record   and   the   cause   of   grievance   projected   by   the   appellants   by
filing   writ   petitions   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   was   that
the   appointments   of   compassionate   appointees   to   the   post   of
Assistant   Engineer   were   void   from   its   inception   and   not   in
conformity   with   Articles   14   &   16   of   the   Constitution   and   being   an
exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services to
be made by open  selection,  disentitles  compassionate appointees to
claim   seniority   above   the   direct   recruit   Assistant   Engineers   in   the
seniority   list   published   as   on   1 st
  January,   2004.     The   submission
although did not find favour before the High Court. 
30

35. We   are   of   the   view   that   after   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in
Nagpal’s case  (supra) (decided on 4 th
 May, 1994) became the law and
binding   on   the   State   Governments,   still   if   the   appointments   are
made   de   hors   the   judgment   of   this   Court   by   the   State   Government
under  its executive fiat, prima facie, are not sustainable in law and
that indeed denies consequential seniority.
36. At   the   same   time,   this   Court   cannot   be   oblivious   of   the
situation   that   the   compassionate   appointments   in   Group
‘B’(Assistant   Engineers   in   the   instant   case)   were   made,   in   the   first
instance,   pursuant   to   G.O.   dated   20 th
  May,   1981   wherein   it   was
specifically  mentioned  that  such  compassionate  appointments  shall
be on ad­hoc basis just to overcome the financial crisis because the
family has lost their breadwinner and such incumbent has to qualify
and   undergo   the   process   of   regular   selection   to   be   held   by   the
Commission but later, by G.O. dated 16 th
  July 1993, the stipulation
of   qualifying   to   hold   the   post   after   selection   to   become   member   of
service   was   deleted.     In   consequence   thereof,   all   such   earlier
appointments   made   in   Group   ‘B’   (Assistant   Engineers   in   particular
to   which   we   are   concerned),   made   prior   to   16 th
  July,   1993   were
31

admittedly   made   on   ad­hoc   basis   and   because   of   stipulation   being
deleted   under   G.O.   dated   16 th
  July,   1993,   all   such   compassionate
appointees   stood   regularized   by   a   single   stroke   by   the   Government
w.e.f.  16 th
  July,   1993  and   later   compassionate   appointments   which
were   made   on   the   post   of   Assistant   Engineers,   their   initial
appointment   was   considered   to   be   the   regular   appointment   for   all
practical purposes.  
37. Neither the G.O. dated 20 th
 May, 1981 nor the latter G.O. dated
16 th
 July, 1993 were the subject matter of challenge, and by the time
the   question   was   raised   assailing   compassionate   appointments,
much   water   was   flown   by   that   time   and   on   the   date   when   the
seniority   list   came   to   be   published   of   Assistant   Engineers   as   on   1 st
January,   2004,   such   compassionate   appointees,   by   that   time   had
attained seniority in service for 7 to 12 years.  
38. This   Court   can   take   a   judicial   notice   that   appointments   on
compassionate   basis   as   Assistant   Engineers   are   made   under   the
respective   G.Os.   dated   20 th
  May,   1981   or   16 th
  July,   1993   and   it   is
not   the   case   of   the   appellants   that   when   such   compassionate
appointments   were   made,   either   of   them   was   ineligible   at   the
32

time   of   initial   appointment   or   appointed   due   to
misrepresentation/concealment on the part of the appointee.  By the
time   the   matter   has   travelled   to   this   Court,   each   of   the
compassionate   appointee   has   now   been   in   service   for   almost   more
than two decades and as informed, are further promoted and few of
them are on the verge of their retirement.   At this point of time, any
adverse   comments   made   at   this   stage   may   certainly   jeopardize   the
right   and   interest   of   the   compassionate   appointees,   who   were
although   beneficiaries   but   were   never   at   fault   that   indeed   lies   with
the   State   authorities   in   making   compassionate   appointments   de
hors   the   judgment   of   this   Court   which   was   the   law   and   binding
upon the State Government under Article 141 of the Constitution.  
39. In   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances,   the   question   still
emerges   as   to   whether   such   compassionate   appointees   are   entitled
to   claim   their   seniority   in   the   cadre   of   Assistant   Engineers   as
published on 1 st
 January, 2004.  
40. The question, in our prima facie view, appears to be affirmative
for   the   reason   that   all   compassionate   appointments   were   made   at
different point of time.   The first batch of compassionate appointees
33

regardless   of   their   nature   of   appointment   stood   regularized   w.e.f.
16 th
  July,   1993   and   the   second   batch   of   compassionate   appointees
were treated to be regular from the date of their initial appointment
and   became     entitled   to   claim   consequential   seniority   in   terms   of
Rule 35(aa) of the scheme of Rules, 1955 and if that is taken at its
face   value,   there   appears   no   infirmity   in   the   seniority   which   has
been   assigned   to   the   compassionate   appointees   published   on   1 st
January,   2004.     It   is   also   not   the   case   of   the   appellants   that   after
they   became   member   of   service,   the   compassionate   appointees   are
later   regularized   retrospectively   from   the   date   of   their   initial
appointment.  
41. To   the   contrary,   the   fact   which   has   come   on   record   and
reflected   from   the   seniority   list   dated   1 st
  January,   2004   is   that   the
appellants are direct recruits who joined service after their selection
on the recommendations made by the Commission and prior to their
becoming   member   of   service,   first   and   second   batch   of
compassionate appointments stood regularized and that being so, in
our   considered   view,   the   seniority   being   consequential   has   been
rightly   assigned   to   the   compassionate   appointees,   vis­à­vis,   direct
34

recruits   as   reflected   in   the   seniority   list   published   on   1 st
  January,
2004, which is in conformity with Rule 35(aa) of Rules 1955.
42. We,   at   one   stage,   were   of   the   view   that   whether   such
appointments   which   were   de   hors   the   judgment   of   this   Court,
deserve   to   be   interfered   with   but   taking   into   consideration   the
humanity aspect and the fact that they are in service for more than
two decades, we became reluctant to make adverse comments which
may   cause   prejudice   to   them.     At   this   stage,   before   we   decided   to
conclude   the   matter,   we   called   upon   the   learned   counsel   for   the
State   Government   to   file   an   additional   affidavit   as   to   under   what
circumstances   the   appointments   are   being   made   on   the   post   of
Assistant   Engineers   which   is   a   Group   ‘B’   post,   at   least,   after   the
judgment of this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) (decided on 4 th
 May,
1994).
43. In   compliance   of   our   order,   an   additional   affidavit   has   been
filed   by   the   Secretary   to   the   Government,   Labour   Welfare   and   Skill
Development and the explanation tendered by the State Government
is far from satisfaction that the judgment in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) of
this Court dated 4 th
  May, 1994 was for the first time made available
35

to   the   Government   by   the   Law   Department   vide   letter   dated
27 th
  September 2001.   Taking note of the judgment of this Court in
Nagpal’s case (supra), the State Government primarily proceeded and
put   a   complete   ban   on   compassionate   appointments,   leaving   aside
certain   categories   of   posts   such   as   teachers,   doctors   and   police
constabulary   by   letter   dated   29 th
  November,   2001   and   learned
counsel   has   further   informed   to   this   Court   that   four   appointments
in   the   cadre   of   teachers   which   is   Group   ‘B’   Post   were   made   by   the
State   authorities   thereafter   and   still   the   Government   was   so
cognizant   of   the   judgment   of   this   Court,   the   detailed   guidelines   for
compassionate   appointments   were   notified   with   a   clear   direction
that   such   compassionate   appointments   shall   be   restricted   only   to
Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ posts for the first time, by a letter dated 19 th
  July
2006.  
44. At   the   same   time,   this   fact   has   not   been   disclosed   in   the
affidavit that apart from the post of Assistant Engineer to which the
controversy   is   brought   before   this   Court,   how   many   compassionate
appointments in Group ‘B’ posts are made by the State Government
in various departments after the judgment of this Court in   Nagpal’s
36

case   (supra)   decided   on   4 th
  May,   1994.     This   fact   remains
conspicuously   silent   for   various   reasons   which   could   be   discerned
by this Court from the material available on record.
45. After   going   through   the   explanation   which   has   been   tendered
by the State Government, this Court, records its anguish to say that
this   attitude   of   the   Government   of   Tamil   Nadu   in   avoiding   the
judgment of this Court in  Nagpal’s case  (supra) dated 4 th
 May 1994,
which   was   not   only   the   law   but   binding   on   the   State   Government
under Article 141 of the Constitution, if still overlooked and flouted
in   this   manner,   such   an   act   of   the   State   Government   is
unpardonable and cannot be countenanced by this Court.  
46. After   taking   note   of   the   rival   submissions   and   the   view   which
we   have   expressed,   although   we   deprecate   the   practice   of   State
Government   in   making   such   compassionate   appointments   under
Group   ‘B’   post   after   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   Nagpal’s   case
(supra), still this Court refrain to disturb the seniority list which has
been assigned to the respective compassionate appointees, vis­à­vis,
direct recruits Assistant Engineers to whom  consequential seniority
has   been   assigned   undisputedly   under   Rule   35(aa)   of   Rules,   1955
37

which   may   not   call   for   our   interference,   at   this   belated   stage,   after
each   of   them   is   in   service   for   more   than   two   decades   and   indeed
right is being conferred to each of them and an individual although a
beneficiary  but was not at fault at  any  given point  of time either  at
the time of entry into service or thereafter.
47. Consequently,   these   appeals   fail   and   accordingly   dismissed
with above observations. No costs.
48. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
…………….………………….J.
      (AJAY RASTOGI)
…………….…………………J.
       (ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
MARCH 10, 2022.
38