Presence of an earning member and exceeding age limits disqualify candidates from compassionate appointment.

The applicant’s father, an Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in the Delhi Police, died in service on 26.02.2018

The applicant’s mother applied for his compassionate appointment on 25.05.2018

On 11.10.2018, the Screening Committee rejected the request because the applicant was overage (28 years and 10 months, exceeding the 27-year limit for the MTS post) and was deemed "less deserving" compared to other candidates

An appeal to the Hon’ble Lieutenant Governor (LG) was rejected on 04.07.2019

The applicant filed the present Original Application (OA) seeking appointment, arguing that his mother’s cancer treatment expenses exceeded the family’s pension income and that his elder brother (already serving in the Delhi Police) had lived separately since 2011

1. Whether the applicant was eligible for compassionate appointment despite exceeding the maximum age limit prescribed in Standing Order No. 39/2018

2. Whether the presence of an elder brother already serving in the Delhi Police bars the applicant’s claim under the relevant policy

3. Whether the family’s financial condition and the mother’s medical expenses necessitated a departure from the recruitment policy

The Tribunal applied Delhi Police Standing Order No. 39/2018, specifically Clause 6(b), which mandates that compassionate appointment shall not be offered if there is already an earning member (Government servant) in the family

The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Punjab Power Corporation Ltd. v. Nirval Singh (2019), which established that there is no inherent right to compassionate appointment and it must follow the existing policy

It further applied State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur (2007), which held that public office is not heritable and the primary test for such appointments is whether the deceased left the family in penury

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the eligibility criteria on multiple grounds.

First, at the time of the application, the applicant was 28 years and 10 months old, whereas the maximum age for a General category candidate for the MTS post is 27 years

Second, the Tribunal noted that under Clause 6(b) of the Standing Order, the applicant was ineligible because his elder brother is already serving in the Delhi Police

Third, the Tribunal rejected the plea of financial penury, noting that the family received ₹59,40,959 in retiral benefits and receives a combined monthly income (family pension and LIC pension) of approximately ₹50,000

Regarding the mother’s cancer treatment, the Tribunal observed that she is a CGHS beneficiary, meaning her medical expenses are reimbursable

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the Screening Committee and the LG had issued reasoned orders that did not warrant interference

The OA was dismissed, and all pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of