2025:UHC:6611-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 3957 of 2018) In SPA/196/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the appellants. 2. Mr. Vinod Chandra Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. 3. Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent no. 2. 4. There is 4 days delay in filing the special appeal. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, we are inclined to condone the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed. 5. Uttarakhand Transport Corporation has filed this Appeal, challenging the judgment dated 20.02.2018, rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 132 of 2015. By the said judgment, order of rejection passed by authorities of Uttarakhand Transport Corporation was quashed and they were directed to consider case of the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1 herein) for compassionate appointment, in accordance with law, without being influenced by the delay. 6. It is not in dispute that father of respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner), who was serving as Driver on regular basis in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, died in harness on 26.06.2008. Respondent no. 1 2025:UHC:6611-DB made application for compassionate appointment on 08.10.2013 with delay of 103 days. 7. As per applicable Rules, request for compassionate appointment has to be made within five years from the date of death, however, in appropriate cases, an application for compassionate appointment can be accepted even after five years. 8. Respondent No. 1 in his writ petition explained the delay by submitting that there was a ban imposed by the State Government on compassionate appointments in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, which was enforced in the year 2001 and remained effective till 13.09.2013; respondent applied for compassionate appointment thereafter, on 08.10.2013. 9. Learned Single Judge, by applying the principle of Lex non cogit ad impossibilia allowed the writ petition by holding that respondent cannot be forced to do the impossible by submitting the application, when there was complete ban on compassionate appointments. 10. We concur with the reasoning given by learned Single Judge. Respondent No. 1 cannot be blamed for delay of 103 days, when there was a ban on compassionate appointments, imposed by the State Government. 11. In such view of the matter, the Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 29.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15 , postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86 DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.31 10:39:28 +05'30'