DATE: 28.10.2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice
Madhu Jain
FACTS:
The present petition was filed by the
Government of NCT of Delhi and others challenging two orders of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, one dated 19.01.2023
in O.A. No. 773/2020 (Amit Kumar v. Govt. of NCTD & Ors.), and another
dated 23.07.2025 in M.A. No. 1680/2024. The case arose from a plea for
compassionate appointment filed by Amit Kumar, a 75% physically disabled person
belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, whose father, Late Shri Sohal Pal,
an MTS employee in the Delhi Police, died in service on 23.12.2013. The
respondent’s mother had sought compassionate appointment for her son to the
post of MTS on 30.06.2015, but the request was rejected on the grounds that no
vacancy existed in the physically challenged quota and that the relevant rules
did not provide such recruitment in the Group ‘C’ cadre except for MTS.
Subsequent representations, including one forwarded through the Lieutenant
Governor’s office, were also rejected in 2016.
The respondent then approached the CAT in
O.A. No. 1002/2017, which was disposed of in 2018 with directions to reconsider
his case as per the new Standing Order No. 39 of 2018 on compassionate
appointments. The Screening Committee, however, again rejected his case in
January 2020 citing non-availability of vacancies. Upon a second application
(O.A. No. 773/2020), the CAT, in January 2023, directed the Delhi Police to
reconsider his case afresh with a compassionate approach. Following this, the
Screening Committee reassessed his application in 2024 but found him
ineligible, as he secured only 50 marks compared to 74 and 76 scored by other
candidates. When the respondent filed M.A. No. 1680/2024 seeking implementation
of the Tribunal’s earlier order, the Tribunal, by its order dated 23.07.2025,
directed full compliance, rejecting the petitioners’ explanation. Aggrieved by
both orders, the petitioners approached the High Court, arguing that
compassionate appointment is not a right but a concession subject to strict
eligibility criteria and merit-based evaluation under Standing Orders Nos. 39
of 2018 and 4 of 2024.
ISSUES:
The principal issue before the Court was
whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in directing
reconsideration and enforcement of compassionate appointment for the
respondent, despite his failure to meet the prescribed eligibility and merit
criteria and the absence of available vacancies in the physically challenged
category under the governing Standing Orders.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition
filed by the Government of NCT of Delhi and upheld the orders of the Central
Administrative Tribunal directing reconsideration of Amit Kumar’s claim for
compassionate appointment. The Court held that the rejection of his candidature
on the ground of “no vacancy” in the physically disabled category was
arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the principles enshrined under the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act). The Court directed
the Screening Committee to reconsider the respondent’s case for compassionate
appointment within eight weeks in accordance with law and the principles of
reasonable accommodation.
The Court found that the petitioners’
repeated rejection of the respondent’s case, spanning over a decade, reflected
a mechanical and insensitive application of the compassionate appointment
policy. Despite specific directions from the Tribunal to reassess the case on
its independent merits, the Screening Committee merely reiterated its earlier
stand of “no vacancy,” thereby defeating the very purpose of compassionate
appointment, which aims to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased
employee who dies in harness. The Court noted that the Standing Orders Nos. 39
of 2018 and 4 of 2024 did not exclude physically disabled dependents from
consideration; rather, they provided specific relaxations for such candidates.
Hence, the authorities’ reliance on the absence of vacancies, without exploring
alternative accommodation or future vacancy cycles, was held to be unjustified
and violative of the respondent’s right to equal opportunity.
The Court further held that the
petitioners’ conduct was inconsistent with the constitutional and statutory
mandate of equality and non-discrimination under the RPwD Act, 2016. Referring
to Sections 3, 20, and 21 of the Act and the Supreme Court’s rulings in Om
Rathod v. Director General of Health Services (2024), Re: Recruitment of
Visually Impaired in Judicial Services (2025), and Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar
G.K. (2025), the Court emphasized that the principle of “reasonable
accommodation” is not a discretionary gesture but a fundamental right that
ensures substantive equality for persons with disabilities. The rejection of
the respondent’s claim, despite his 75% disability and socially disadvantaged
background, was held to be manifestly arbitrary and antithetical to
constitutional values of fairness, inclusion, and dignity. The Court concluded
that the petitioners failed to act with the compassion and sensitivity required
by law and directed a fresh consideration of the respondent’s claim within
eight weeks.
ANALYSIS:
The Delhi High Court’s decision in
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Amit Kumar underscores the judiciary’s evolving
approach toward balancing administrative discretion in compassionate
appointments with the constitutional mandate of substantive equality for
persons with disabilities. The Court’s insistence on a “compassionate and
reasonable” reassessment of the respondent’s case reflects a shift from the
traditional view that compassionate appointments are mere concessions, toward
recognizing them as instruments of social justice when applied to vulnerable
groups. By rejecting the “no vacancy” justification and emphasizing the duty of
the State to ensure reasonable accommodation under the *Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016*, the Court reaffirmed that procedural rigidity cannot
override the substantive objective of such welfare measures — to mitigate the
financial hardship of bereaved families, especially where disability and
socio-economic disadvantage intersect.
Furthermore, the judgment harmonizes the
principles of administrative fairness with constitutional morality by invoking
Sections 3, 20, and 21 of the RPwD Act and precedents such as Om Rathod and
Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K. The Court recognized that equality for persons
with disabilities demands proactive inclusion rather than passive compliance.
In doing so, it placed an affirmative obligation on public authorities to
interpret compassionate appointment policies through the lens of dignity,
accessibility, and social equity. The case thus serves as a significant
reaffirmation of the judiciary’s role in ensuring that bureaucratic procedures
do not dilute the humanistic essence of welfare legislation and that the rights
of persons with disabilities receive meaningful, rather than symbolic,
enforcement.
info@adhwaitha.com