JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is barred by limitation from116 days.

2. Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The short issue involved in this appeal is with regard to mode for consideration of “undue hardship” while invoking first proviso to Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

4. The rule aforesaid reads as under:-

“5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.– (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the 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, one member of his family who 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 shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person-

(i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,

(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant:

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

Provided further that for the purpose of the aforesaid proviso, the person concerned shall explain the reason and give proper justification in writing regarding the delay caused in making the application for employment after the expiry of the time limit fixed for making the application for employment along with the necessary documents/proof in support of such delay and the Government shall, after taking into consideration all the facts leading to such delay take the appropriate decision.

(2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.

(3) Every appointment made under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall maintain other members of the family of deceased Government servant, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant immediately before his death and are unable to maintain themselves.”

5. Learned single Bench while accepting a batch of writ petitions lead by Writ -A No.30675 of 2013, Antariksha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others directed the appellant-respondent, State Government “to reconsider the claim of compassionate appointment and relaxation of time limit, deciding undue hardship continuing to the family within a period of two months from the date of producing certified copy of this order”.

6. On principle, there is no dispute that as per first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 while invoking authority to relax the time limit, the government is required to be satisfy itself the undue hardship in a particular case but the grievance of the appellant-respondent is that for such consideration adequate material should be there and the proviso is not required to be invoked ipse dixit on the count that at the time of death of the government servant his/her ward was minor. It is submitted that learned single Bench while giving the directions for reconsideration of the case for appointment on compassionate grounds failed to