Rakesh Kumar vs Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi And Anr

The applicant has filed the present Original Application (OA), seeking the following reliefs:-

To call for records of the case and quash/set aside the Order dated 22.12.2014, Order dt.31.8.2017 and Proceedings of Committees on the basis of these impugned orders were issued.

To direct the respondents to provide appointment to applicant on compassionate ground at the earliest.

To award cost in favor of the applicants and pass any other order or orders, which this Hon"ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."

It is the case of the applicant that while performing duty in the midnight of 31.12.2011, the father of the applicant suffered serious head injuries and expired on 31.05.2014, leaving behind the widow and two unmarried daughters and one son. Thereupon, on 11.07.2014, the mother of the applicant applied for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds to the post of HC (Min.) under OBC Category for which the maximum age limit is 28 years, as the applicant"s date of birth is 24.09.1988 and is only about 26 years old at that time and ultimately, the respondents called the applicant and conducted his Physical Endurance Test that he qualified. Thereafter, the respondents considered and rejected the case of the applicant vide order dated 22.12.2014 for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of HC (Min.). The applicant has alleged that the respondents had rejected his case for compassionate appointment illegally and wrongly rejected on the ground of being overage, whereas he was within the age of 28 years as on 11.7.2014 and 22.12.2014 also. Being aggrieved with this inaction of the respondents, the mother of the applicant again submitted Application for appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground to the post of HC (Min.) under OBC Category by granting age relaxation, if any, required and it was informed vide letters dated 26.05.2015 and 25.10.2016 that the applicant"s case for appointment on compassionate ground to the post of HC (Min.) has been included in the list of cases to be decided by the Police Establishment Board in its next meeting for re-consideration. The respondents again rejected the case of the applicant on the ground of being overage. Hence this OA is filed.

The respondents, while contesting the OA, have filed their CA in which they have submitted that the late father of the applicant, who was enlisted in Delhi Police as Const. (Exe.) on 19.08.1976 and promoted upto the rank of Sub-Inspr. (Exe.), expired on 31. 05.2014 due to illness after completing of 37 years 9 Months & 12 Days of service. They have contended that the application dated 11.07.2014 of the mother of the applicant for appointment of the applicant on compassionate ground in Delhi Police was considered by the Police Establishment Board for the post of Const. (Exe.) in its meeting held on 20.11.2014 but could not be approved for the reason that the permissible age for the wards of deceased police personnel to the post of Const. (Exe.) is 25 years, whereas the age of the applicant was 26.8 years being his date of birth as 24.09.1988. This was followed by another representation which was again reconsidered and rejected by the Police Establishment Board to the post of Const. (Exe.) in its meeting held on 19.10.2015 due to the same reason as mentioned above. They have also contended that however, no approval was made for the post of HC (Min.) by the Police Establishment Board in its meeting held on 19.10.2015 due to non availability of vacancy. Later on, in compliance the directions of the Hon"ble L.G., Delhi, case/request of the applicant was again reconsidered by the Police Establishment Board to the post of HC (Min.)/Const.(Exe.) in its meeting held on 13.01.2017 but could not be approved, due to the reason of overage for the post of Const. (Exe.).

The respondents have contended that the family pension & other pensionary benefits i.e. DCRG, Leave encashment etc. were sanctioned in favour of wife of deceased employee. They have submitted that the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate basis has been considered on the basis of instructions/guidelines of DOPT as well as Standing Order No.39/2014 after scrutinizing the data of all applicants thoroughly and also kept in mind the Judgment dated 04.05.1994, of the Hon"ble Apex Court, in case of Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Others while considering compassionate ground cases and due to paucity of vacancy in the rank of HC (Min.), the members of Police Establishment Board, for the sake of natural justice, had tried to accommodate more eligible candidates to the initial rank i.e. Const. (Exe.). They have thus prayed that the OA is liable to be dismissed.

After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, it is noticed that the mother of the applicant had applied for compassionate appointment for the applicant only on 11.07.2014 and as per the record, the date of birth of the applicant is 24.09.1988. Hence, it is clear that the applicant was overaged as he had crossed the permissible age of 25 years for the wards of deceased police personnel to the post of Const.(Exe.) at the time of application for compassionate appointment. We have also examined the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in which Para 2 of the said Scheme reads as under:-

"2. TO WHOM APPLICABLE

To a dependent family member-

(A) of a Government servant who-

(a) dies while in service (including death by suicide); or

(b) is retried on medical grounds under Rule 2 of the CCS(Medical Examination) Rules, 1957 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group "D" Government servants); or

(c) is retired on medical grounds under Rule 38 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972 or the corresponding provision in the Central Civil Service Regulations before attaining the age of 55 years (57 years for erstwhile Group "D" Government servants); or"

It is an undisputed fact that the age of the father of the applicant was about 58 years when he expired on 31.05.2014 due to long illness and as such, he had crossed the mandatory age of 55 years required for the applicability of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment. We also find that besides that, the respondents, vide their letter dated 26.05.2015, had included the name of the applicant in the list of cases for compassionate appointment by granting age relaxation to him but his case when not found to be more deserving than others was rejected by the respondents. Hence, we do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents in rejecting the claim of the applicant for appointment against a vacancy for compassionate appointment as they were more deserving candidates than the applicant and cannot interfere with the decision of the competent authority in light of the decision of the Nanak Chand v. Delhi Jal Board, 2007(140)DLT 489, in which the Hon"ble High Court had held as under:-

"14. The mandate of the Supreme Court is very clear from the aforestated judgments that it is not for the High Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decision arrived at by the competent authority while considering the eligibility of an applicant for appointment on compassionate basis and all it can do is to see whether the decision of the competent authority is vitiated. Having scrutinized the cases in hand in the aforesaid background, this Court does not consider it appropriate to interfere with the findings of facts and the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority."

In view of the above, the OA lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.