-Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:45974 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19036 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwini Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Rai,C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. 1. Heard Shri Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondent No. 1 and Shri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. By the impugned order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 as well as the consequential order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the respondent No. 3, the application of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate ground was invalidated. 3. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 18.06.2021. The petitioner promptly obtained a driving licence for a heavy vehicle on 29.12.2021. The application for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted by the petitioner on 15.07.2024. The minimum eligibility criteria for grant of appointment as a driver on compassionate ground is possession of a heavy vehicle driving licence at least for the past five years. 4. The impugned order records that the driving licence for heavy vehicle was issued to the petitioner on 29.12.2021. The period of five years of heavy vehicle driving licence will be completed on 29.12.2026, by which time the claim of the petitioner would exceed period of five years which is the prescribed time of limitation. On this footing the claim of petitioner was held to be barred by limitation and was declined. 5. The rule of limitation of five years for grant of compassionate ground appointment is engrafted in the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to the "Rules 1974"). Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 is extracted hereunder for ease of reference:- " 5. [ Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. [Substituted by Notification No. 6/XII-73-Ka-2-99, dated 20th January, 1999, published in the U.P. Gazette, (Extraordinary), Part 4, Section (Ka), dated 20th January, 1999.] (i)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. (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.]" 6. A perusal of the rule of limitation shows that it is not cast in imperative terms. On the contrary the proviso to Rule 5 of Rules, 1974 is reflective of flexibility and vests the discretion in the competent authority to condone the delay in cases where the delay has been caused due to undue hardship. 7. The impugned order neglects the hardship caused to the petitioner. The conduct of the petitioner has been diligent. There is no wilful delay on his part. Furthermore in the facts and circumstances of this case the failure to condone the likely/prospective delay is contrary to the proviso of the Rule 5 and results in grave injustice. 8. The period of six months of delay in the facts and circumstances of this case is liable to be condoned if the application is presented by the petitioner immediately after satisfying the eligibility criteria for a driver. 9. In this wake, the impugned order 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 as well as the consequential order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the respondent No. 3 are quashed. 10. The matter is remitted to the respondents authority with the following direction:- (i) The petitioner shall submit a fresh representation immediately after completion of 5 years from the date of issuance of the heavy vehicle licence alongwith a copy of the order. (ii) The case of the petitioner shall be considered for appointment on compassionate ground as per law without going into the issue of delay after the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 2.4.2025 Jaswant Digitally signed by :- JASWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad