ABHISHEK AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 10.07.2025 + W.P.(C) 4566/2024 ABHISHEK AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Rahul Rohtagi, Advocate. versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Saket, SPCG, Mr. Manish Madhukar, Mr. Abhigyan, Advocates for UOI. Mr. Chandan Kumar and Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioners are the son and wife of Late Sh. Ram Kishan, who was an employee of respondent No.2 - Centre for Railway Information Systems [“CRIS”]. Sh. Ram Kishan died on 03.05.2020, while he was still in service. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners seek a direction upon CRIS to appoint petitioner No. 1 on compassionate grounds, in place of his deceased father, as requested through a representation made by petitioner No. 2 on 18.08.2020. 2. I have heard Mr. Rahul Rohtagi, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Chandan Kumar, learned counsel for CRIS. 3. Two recent judgments of the Supreme Court have summarised the principles which must inform the consideration of applications for Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL W.P.(C) 4566/2024 Page 1 of 9 Signing Date:13.07.2025 16:51:55 compassionate appointment: (a) The following extracts of the judgment of a three-judge Bench, in Tinku v. State of Haryana & Ors.1, are relevant for the present case: “12. As regards the compassionate appointment being sought to be claimed as a vested right for appointment, suffice it to say that the said right is not a condition of service of an employee who dies in harness, which must be given to the dependent without any kind of scrutiny or undertaking a process of selection. It is an appointment which is given on proper and