As per case facts, the appellants (Sanjeev Kumar, Tarun Gagat, Surender Pal, and Devender Singh @ Davender Singh) were granted compassionate appointments as Forest Guards many years after their fathers' ... deaths. They accepted these appointments and received subsequent promotions. After nearly two decades, they filed representations seeking retrospective up-gradation to higher posts like Forester or Deputy Forest Ranger, claiming their initial appointments were contrary to policy. The State Government, despite objections from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, allowed these retrospective upgrades. This decision was challenged by regularly appointed employees (private respondents) through Writ Petitions, arguing that such retrospective benefits unsettled their long-standing seniority and were impermissible after the initial appointments were accepted. The Single Judge allowed these Writ Petitions, setting aside the retrospective up-gradation orders. The current appeal challenges the Single Judge's judgment. The question arose whether compassionate appointees, having accepted a lower post, could claim retrospective up-gradation to a higher post after a long delay, thereby affecting the seniority of regularly appointed employees. Finally, the High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that compassionate appointment is a concession, not a vested right, and once accepted, subsequent claims for retrospective up-gradation after decades are impermissible due to acquiescence and estoppel, particularly when it prejudices the seniority of regularly selected employees. The court also expressed concern over the arbitrary manner in which the State granted these benefits.