CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No. 942/2026 This the 14th March, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)

Abhilash S/o Late ASI (Exe.) Madan Lal R/o M-94, J.J. Colony, Camp No.3, Nangloi, Nilothi, West Delhi, Delhi-I 10041. ………..Applicant (By Advocate : Dr Sunil Kumar)

VERSUS

1. Commissioner of Police, New Police Head Quarter, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-I 10001.

2. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Security (HQ), Manas Marg, Bapu Dham, Chanakyapuri, New Delhi-I 10021.

..... Respondents (By Advocate : Ms Uma Prasuna Bacho, Sr. Panel Counsel)

ORDER (ORAL):

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant.

2. It is the case of the applicant that the father of the applicant was serving in the Delhi Police as an ASI and expired on 12.02.2023. The applicant submitted an application for compassionate appointment in April, 2023. However, for consideration of the said application, a meeting of the Screening Committee was held on 05.09.2024, and the case of the applicant was rejected on the ground that no vacancy was available for the post of Constable (Executive)/MTS, vide communication dated 16.10.2024. Thereafter, the applicant made another representation on 24.04.2025. However, the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment was again not acceded to for the following reasons:

(i) Over-aged for Constable(Exe.) and (ii) No vacancy for of MTS.

3. Liberty was granted to the applicant to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor of Delhi within a period of one year. The applicant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble LG vide application dated 24.04.2025, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 09.07.2025, and communication to this effect was made to the applicant on

19.01.2026.

4. Issue notice. Ms. Uma Prasuna Bacho, learned Senior Panel Counsel, who appears on advance receipt of the OA, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. She submits that the maximum age limit prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) for SC category candidates was 30 years, and the same parameters are applicable in cases of compassionate appointment as well. She further submits that, as specifically mentioned in the impugned orders at Annexure A-1, Annexure A-8 and Annexure A-10, there was no vacancy existing in the relevant category for the post of MTS and applicant is over age. In view of the above, the orders passed by the respondents are well-reasoned and there is no scope to accept the submissions of the applicant seeking compassionate appointment. Moreover, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punjab Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Nirval Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774 has observed that there in no inherent rights to obtain compassionate appointment and it has to be made in accordance with the existing policy.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571 has revisited the law relation to compassionate appointment and held the Public office is not heritable and, therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of rights.

7. I have also perused the impugned orders available at Annexure A-1 dated 24.03.2025, Annexure A-8 dated 16.10.2024 and Annexure A-10 dated 19.01.2026 passed by Add. Commissioner of Police, Dy. Commissioner of Police and Deputy Commissioner of Police on Hon’ble LG’s decision respectively. All the impugned orders are reasoned one and claim of the applicant is not maintainable.

8. In view of the above, I find that there is no substance in the O.A. Accordingly, the present O.A. is dismissed at the admission stage.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Rajveer Singh Verma)

Member (J)

/pinky/