JUDGMENT : MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the letter dated 06.05.2025 issued by respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected. 3. Placing the brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father, who was working as a Junior Clerk in the Ghaziabad Development Authority, died in harness on 13.11.2016, leaving behind his wife and two children as dependents. At the time of his father's death, the petitioner was studying in Class VII and was a minor. Upon attaining majority, he moved an application dated 09.11.2021 requesting the respondent authorities to consider his claim for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The said application, however, came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 06.05.2025 on the ground that the petitioner's mother is employed as a Clerk in the NOIDA Authority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible to be appointed to look after the financial crisis of the family. The petitioner's application has been rejected without considering the financial hardship of the family and also the fact that the petitioner was dependent on the deceased employee. Therefore, the impugned order, passed on the basis of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, is illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner's mother is employed as a Clerk in the NOIDA Authority and in view of the requisite conditions for appointment on compassionate ground as stipulated under Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974, which enumerates that one member of deceased employee's family shall be given employment, in case spouse of the deceased Government Servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground after the demise of his father, who died in harness. 6. 6. It is an admitted fact that petitioner's mother is working on the post of Clerk in the NOIDA Authority and the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to provide succour to the indigent family of a deceased employee so as to tide over the sudden crisis and financial destitution. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das & Ors. reported in (2008) 15 SCC 560 , has remarked that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. 8. In the case of The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Somyashree reported in AIR 2021 SC 5620 , the Supreme Court has observed that dependents of the deceased Government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfill the norms laid down by the State's policy. The Court has further held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 9. Following the aforementioned judgements of Apex Court, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar Jeph v. Joint Director, Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise (Jaipur Zone), Jaipur, Rajasthan & another (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4928 of 2020 : 2023RJ-JP:41338-DB) , has held as under:- "18. ...the principles pertaining to the nature of claim made by the dependents, its consideration based on the parameters as laid down in the relevant Rules, that also with the emphasis that the applicant-dependent must strictly fall within the parameters as on the date of the death of government servant, are well established besides the fact that the appointment is neither a right nor an alternative source of recruitment. (emphasis supplied)" 10. The aforementioned judgement of Rajasthan High Court in Ravi Kumar Jeph (supra) , was challenged before the Apex Court by means of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 25916 of 20257 . The Apex Court vide its judgement dated 17.06.2025 has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits, observing that there is no ground to interfere with the order challenged therein. 11. 25916 of 20257 . The Apex Court vide its judgement dated 17.06.2025 has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits, observing that there is no ground to interfere with the order challenged therein. 11. In view of the aforesaid, admittedly the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as framed under Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 as his mother (spouse of deceased employee) is working as Clerk in NOIDA Authority and in view of the settled position of law, discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is inevitable the dependent must strictly fall within the parameters as on the date of death of government servant and must fulfill the norms laid down by policy of State Government, for consideration of employment on compassionate ground. 12. I do not find it a fit case to be interfered with. The writ petition lacks merit, hence stands dismissed . No order as to costs.