# Aditya Dhanraj Ashok v. Vice Chairman Ghaziabad Development Authority Ghaziabad & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1185
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-13
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 15805 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-dhanraj-ashok-v-vice-chairman-ghaziabad-development-authority-ghaziabad-52634
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Tejasvi Misra

Issue for consideration
 Whether petitioner is eligible for compassionate
appointment?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974: Rule 5 -
Compassionate
appointment
is
a
concession and not a right. 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 norms prevailing on the
date of consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of
claim.
The
applicant-dependent
must
strictly fall within the parameters as on
the date of the government servants. (Para
7 to 9)

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. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

11 All. Aditya Dhanraj Ashok Vs. Vice Chairman Ghaziabad Development Authority Ghaziabad &
 Anr.
1185
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners,
the opposite party no. 6 and the other stake
holders, if any,within a period of six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is produced before him.

22. The petitioners as well as the
opposite party no. 6 are directed to
cooperate with the proceedings, as is
directed to be completed by the District
Inspector of Schools(II), Lucknow.

23. The Writ Petition is allowed
accordingly.

24. Consequences to follow.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1185
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 15805 of 2025

Aditya Dhanraj Ashok ...Petitioner
Versus
Vice Chairman Ghaziabad Development
Authority Ghaziabad & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Mishra, Suraj Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Tejasvi Misra

Issue for consideration
 Whether petitioner is eligible for compassionate
appointment?

Headnotes
A. Service Law - U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974: Rule 5 -
Compassionate
appointment
is
a
concession and not a right. 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 norms prevailing on the
date of consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of
claim.
The
applicant-dependent
must
strictly fall within the parameters as on
the date of the government servants. (Para
7 to 9)

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. (Para 11)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1.
Steel
Authority
of
India
Limited
Vs.
Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560
(Para 7)
2. The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr.
Vs. V. Somyashree, AIR 2021 SC 5620 (Para 8)
3. Ravi Kumar Jeph Vs. 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 (Para 9)

List of Acts
U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

List of Keywords
Service, compassionate appointment, financial
crisis, criteria.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Om Prakash Mishra, Suraj
Mishra
For Respondent: Tejasvi Misra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Tejasvi Misra, learned
counsel for the respondents.
1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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. 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.
11 All. Dr. Padmakar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1187

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 : 2023RJJP: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.
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.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1187
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 16997 of 2025
&
Writ A No. 16669 of 2019

Dr. Padmakar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aman Arya, Udayan Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Shesh Kumar Srivastava

Issue(s) for consideration
 (a) Whether an objection to petitioner's
qualification
for
the
post
of
Director
(Publication) can be raised to challenge his
promotion?
(b) What would be the effect of order dated
17.09.2019 whereby GO dated 31.12.2003 was
cancelled being a forged document on basis of
an inquiry?
(c) What would be the effect of impugned order
dated 17.09.2019, i.e., whether it would be
retrospective or prospective?
(d)
Whether
petitioner
being
Director
(Publication) would be entitled to retire at the
age of 60 years or 62 years?