Compassionate appointment is not a vested right and needs to be extended to the bereaved family, considering the financial benefits received by the family.

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to an order dated August 14, 2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', in short) in Original Application No.3102/2018 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA by stating as under:

"5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings on record. It is observed that admittedly the applicant's case for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground of being overage as his case does not come within the ambit of the provisions of the Standing Order No.39/2014, which provides of consideration of candidature for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) within maximum of 30 years of age only and applicant at the time of submission of his application has already attained the age of 31 years and seven months, which decision was communicated to the applicant vide order dated 9.2.2017. It is to be noted that applicant's mother has also sent her application to the Hon'ble Lt. Governor, Delhi, who also rejected the case of the applicant due to overage, as his case was not covered under the eligibility criteria of Standing Order No.39/2014 issued by Delhi Police. It is also to be noted that compassionate ground appointment is not a vested right but a consideration that needs to be extended to the bereaved family to provide immediate help and to avoid conditions of penury. This has been extended twice but did not succeed and objective reasons have been advised to the applicant. While there is need to extend sympathetic consideration, but needs of public service shall continue to be paramount and hence, the conditions of employment need to be inconformity with the relevant rules. These are governed by Standing Order No.39/2014 in the instant case, which have been scrupulously followed by the respondents. Hence, this Tribunal does not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 6.4.2018 passed by the respondents denying compassionate appointment to applicant."

2. The challenge of the petitioner in the OA was to an order dated April 6, 2018, whereby the respondents have rejected the request of the mother of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground because of the death of her husband, late Sub Inspector, Rajender Singh, on the ground that the case is not covered under the Standing Order No.39/2014, being overage.

3. The father of the petitioner had joined Delhi Police as Constable in the year 1978. While he was working as Sub Inspector, on December 17, 2015 he unfortunately died. In April, 2016, petitioner's mother applied for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds in Delhi Police. The petitioner is 12th pass and trained driver and holding a valid driving license and his date of birth is November 14, 1984. Further, request was made on May 2, 2016 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

4. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the respondents vide letter dated May 12, 2016, ordered a detailed enquiry into the members of the petitioner's family, source of income and financial condition etc. It appears, the case of the petitioner was that he has brother, who is unemployed and his sister is married and living in her matrimonial home and they have given their no objection for appointment of the petitioner.

5. As no reply was received on the representation, the petitioner's mother sent an application dated July 22, 2017 to the Lt. Governor of Delhi requesting him to intervene in the matter and to grant appointment to the petitioner as Constable (Driver) in the Delhi Police on compassionate ground.

6. It was finally, vide letter dated April 6, 2018, the Department of Home, Govt. of NCT of Delhi informed the petitioner that in view of Standing Order No.39/2014 issued by Delhi Police, the petitioner being over age, he could not be appointed on compassionate ground as Constable Driver.

7. The case of the respondents before