W. P. (C.) No. 13857 of 2009 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.13857/2009 % Date of Decision: 15.12.2009 Shri Trilok Chand …. Petitioner Through Ms.Priyanka M.Bhardwaj, Advocate. Versus Union of India and others …. Respondents Through Mr.Ravinder Agarwal, Central Government Standing Counsel for the UOI. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * The father of the petitioner had died while in service on 26th December, 2000 and the petitioner had sought compassionate appointment. However, his request for compassionate appointment was declined by order dated 8th July, 2008 in terms of OM dated 5th May, 2003 as there had been no vacancy in the three years, i.e., 2000-01, 2001-02 & 2002-03. The application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was received by the respondents on 15th February, 2001. W. P. (C.) No. 13857 of 2009 Page 2 of 4 An Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1986 being OA No.2551 of 2008, Shri Trilok Chand v. Union of India and others had been filed by the petitioner to challenge his non- appointment on compassionate grounds, and to seek appointment on compassionate ground, which has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 18th August, 2009 which is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the compassionate appointment is to be given in cases where the family is in indigent condition and deserves the immediate assistance against financial destitution. Restriction of vacancies for compassionate appointment to 5% vacancies also cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Considering the fact and circumstances, it is also apparent that the petitioner had passed Bachelor Degree in pursuance to an examination held in April 2002 and he had applied earlier for compassionate appointment by letter dated 9th January, 2001 to CIT, Rohtak on compassionate basis for the post of LDC. Since the petitioner had not even qualified the examination for Bachelor Degree on 9th January, 2001, he was not eligible for appointment in the year 2000-2001. W. P. (C.) No. 13857 of 2009 Page 3 of 4 The request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment could be for considered for three years only. Since the father of the petitioner died on 26th December, 2000 and the application for compassionate appointment was made on 9th January, 2001, therefore, the application could be considered during the year 2000-2001; 2001- 2002 and 2002-2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the application for compassionate appointment should have been considered for three calendar years from the date of the application and not for three recruitment years. Learned counsel is, however, unable to show any rule or memorandum specifying that the application had to be considered for three calendar years and not for the recruitment years. Since the application is for the recruitment, the consideration has to be during the recruitment years and not the calendar years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to show that there had been vacancies during the three recruitment years in the North West region and, therefore, any vacancy released thereafter will not enure to the advantage of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances, nor the petitioner shall have any right for further consideration of his application. W. P. (C.) No. 13857 of 2009 Page 4 of 4 Reliance has also been placed by the respondents on the letter dated 5th May, 2003 of DOP&T stipulating that the maximum number of times a person’s name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years. It is contended that compassionate appointment is not to be offered after three years, because if a family could survive the state of destitution for reasonable period, i.e., three years without support in the form of compassionate appointment, it may no longer be in need of such a support after the lapse of such period. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not been able to make out any illegality or such irregularity in the order of the Tribunal dated 18th August, 2009, which shall require interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition therefore requires no consideration and it is dismissed. ANIL KUMAR, J. December 15, 2009 VIPIN SANGHI, J. ‘Dev’