Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Brijesh Chaubey vs Delhi Police on 26 February, 2026
Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No. 3512/2024
Order reserved on 26.02.2026
Order Pronounced on 18.03.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
In the matter of
Sh. Brijesh Chaubey
S/o Late Sh. Rangji Chaubey,
R/o Kh. No. 317/214, Gali No. 15,
B-Block, Mukundpur Part-I,
Delhi-110042.
Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Virender Sing)
Versus
The Commissioner Delhi Police
Delhi Police New HQ,
Jai Singh Road,
New Delhi-110001
Email: cp.sanjayarora@delhipolice,gov.in
Respondent
(By Advocate: Ms. Annu Singh)
ORDER
1. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
(i) The father of the applicant namely Shri Rangji Chaubey was worked with the respondents as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) and was expired during service on 26.02.2018 at the age of 56 years 07 months and 25 days due to illness.
(ii) The mother namely Smt. Shanti Chaubey w/o deceased employee submitted an application on 25.05.2018 for the appointment of applicant on Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar+05'30' Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024 compassionate ground in Delhi Police as Head Constable (Ministerial) or constable (Executive).
(iii) The concerned DCP recommended name of applicant for the post of MTS and after due verification i.e. after completion codal formalities i.e. physical measurement, property verification etc., name of applicant was considered by the screening committee in its meeting held on 11.10.2018 but could not be approved as he was found overage and less deserving in comparison to other similarly placed other cases. Thereafter request for appointment was declined by the respondents vide order dated 20.12.2018 (Annexure A-4).
(iv) The mother of the applicant again made her application to Hon'ble L.G. for the appointment of her son on compassionate ground on 31.12.2018. The same was reject by the Hon'ble LG on 04.07.2019 (Annexure A-5) and communicated to her on 31.08.2019 (Annexure A-6).
(v) The mother of applicant again made request with respondent to appoint her son on compassionate ground on 19.08.2019 (Annexure A-7). The mother of applicant received certain information from respondents under RTI reply on 21.06.2022 and 27.06.2022.
(vi) The applicant also filed a fresh representation on 07.02.2024 with no objection of other legal heirs of the deceased. However received no response from respondents.
2. Feeling aggrieved with the decision of the respondents the applicant has filed present OA for following reliefs:
Prashant Prash Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar +05'30' Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024 "(i) The applicant may be please appointed any suitable post on the basis of education and as per norms of the respondent on the compassionate ground.
(ii) Pass any other or suitable relief in favour of the applicant in the interst of justice."
3. The respondents have filed written submission and have prayed to dismiss the OA on following rounds:
(i) Application dated 25.05.2018 submitted by mother of applicant and w/o deceased employee for appointment of applicant on compassionate ground was duly considered and recommending authority recommended the name of the applicant for the post of MTS and after completing the codal formalities, the candidate was considered by the screening committee in its meeting held on 11.10.2018 but could not be approved as same was found overage & less deserving in compassionate to similarly placed other cases.
(ii) As per standing order No. 39/2018 dated 20.12.2018, the age requirement for the post of MTS of General category candidate is 27 years, whereas the applicant had already completed the age of 28 years 10 months, being his date of birth 01.07.1989 as on 25.05.2018 i.e. date of first application submitted by his mother.
(iii) The respondents have referred clause 6(b) of standing order No. 39/2018. (Now 6(a) of standing order no. welfare/04/20225) and submitted in their written submission in reply to para 4.2 -4.3 of OA that:
Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar+05'30' Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024 ".........Compassionate ground appointment will not be offered to the dependent of the deceased police personnel, where there is already an earning member i.e. Govt. Servant (including public sector undertaking). In the instant case, the elder son of the deceased ASI namely Sh. Vivek Chaubey is already serving in Delhi Police. Later, Smt. Shanti Chaubey W/o Late Sh. ASI Rangji Chaubey No. 168/NE had filed the appeal before Hon'ble L.G Delhi on 31.12.2018 requesting therein for the appointment of her son Brijesh Chaubey on compassionate grounds, after examining the case Hon'ble L.G. Delhi rejected the same vide GNCTD letter No. F-3/2/2019/HP-1 Estt./2434-2435 dated 04.07.2019."
(iv) Hon'ble L.G. Delhi has also dismissed the appeal dated 31.12.2018 vide its order dated 04.07.2019.
(v) Request dated 19.08.2019 of mother of applicant was examined and not acceded too by the respondents.
(vi) Family of the deceased ASI got pensionary benefits Rs. 59,40,959/. Mother of applicant is getting family pension of Rs. 24,500/- + R.I.P. Elder son of deceased i.e. elder brother of applicant is also serving in Delhi Police.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perusal the relevant papers available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that mother of the applicant is suffering from cancer and pension amount is not sufficient to meet the expenses of cancer treatment with regard to service of elder brother i.e. elder son of deceased in Delhi Police, the learned counsel submitted that he is living separately since 2011 Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar+05'30' Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024 and does not support the family of deceased. Applicant is in dire need of service and the amount received by his mother on account of family pension (Rs. 35,000/- approx) and LIC pension (Rs. 15,800/- approx per month) is not sufficient to meet the cancer expenses of mother of the applicant.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent submitted that age of the applicant was 28 years and 10 months on the date of submission i.e. on 25.05.2018 of his first application by his mother for his appointment on compassionate ground and the applicant was overage. In view of the fact that maximum age requirement for the post of MTS for general category candidate is 27 years. The applicant belong to general category. The learned counsel for the relied upon the clause 6(b) of the standing order of the Delhi Police which states that:-
"Compassionate ground appointment will not be offered to the dependent of the deceased police personnel, where there is already an earning member i.e. Govt. Servant (including Public Sector Undertaking). However, in case of married daughter, the Screening Committee will take a decision, keeping in view of the status/all aspects of the deceased's family."
In the instant case, the elder son of the deceased is already serving in Delhi Police.
7. With regard to expenses incurred in treatment of mother of the applicant for her ailment (cancer) the learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per PPO No. 889 dated 13.08.2018 issued in the name of Smt. Shanti Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar+05'30' Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024 Chaubey, CGHS facility has been provided to her and therefore the expenses incurred in her treatment are reimbursable.
8. Our Analysis:- following and the admitted that:
(i) The elder son of deceased ASI Sh. Rangji Chaubey namely Sh. Vivek Chaubey is already serving in Delhi Police and as per clause 6(b) of the standing order 39/2018 "compassionate ground appointment will not be offered to the dependent of the deceased police personnel, where there is already an earning member i.e. Govt. servant including public sector undertaking".
(ii) Total amount of Rs. 59,40,959/- was paid to Smt. Shanti Chaubey w/o late ASI Rangiji Chaubey as retiral benefits. Further she is also getting family pension of Rs. 24,500+RIP (total Rs. 35,000/-
approx.) and also getting LIC pension of Rs. 15,800/- per month. Applicant is also getting Rs. 15,000/- per month from LIC pension policy.
(iii) PPO No. 8899 dated 13.08.2018 was issued in the name of Smt. Shanti Chaubey, CGHS facility has been provided to her. Thus the expenses incurred in her treatment of cancer ailment are reimbursable.
(iv) The applicant had completed the age of 28 years 10 months on the date of first application given by his mother on 25.05.2018 for the appointment on compassionate ground where the maximum age required for the post of MTS general category candidate is 27 years. Therefore the applicant become overage.
(v) The screening committee in its meeting held on 11.10.2018 has examined the case of applicant and Prashant Prash Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar +05'30' Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024 has not approved his case due to the facts that he was found overage and less deserving in comparison to similarly placed other cases. The order dated 20.12.2018 passed by the competent authority and order dated 04.07.2019 passed by the Hon'ble L.G. Delhi are reasoned one and we do not find any infirmities there in which may call any interfere of this Tribunal.
(vi) The subsequent representation dated 19.08.2019 submitted by mother of applicant and representation dated 07.02.2024 of the applicant and request made therein have not find favour of the respondents. We also do not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in this regard.
9. 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.
10. 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. The test of eligibility would be whether the deceased left the family in penury.
Conclusion
11. In view of the above analysis and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject of compassionate appointment, I do not find any merit in the instant OA. The Prashant Prash Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar +05'30' Item no. 61 (C-VI) OA 3512/2024 OA is liable to be dismissed. As result thereof, OA is dismissed.
12. All MAs, if any, are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) Member (J) /Prashant/ Prash Prashant Kumar ant 2026.03.19 10:16:23 Kumar+05'30'