Secretary Bound to Consider Time-Limit Relaxation for Compassionate Appointment Applications in Cases of Undue Hardship.

The respondent, Km. Shiristi Shah, applied for compassionate appointment following the death of her mother (a government employee) on 18.10.2013.

The District Education Officer rejected the application on 01.08.2022 because it was filed beyond the five-year limitation period.

The respondent challenged this in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 629/2023.

On 18.11.2024, a Single Judge set aside the rejection and remitted the matter for reconsideration, directing the authorities to evaluate the relaxation of the time limit and, if necessary, create a supernumerary post.

Subsequently, the Secretary passed a fresh order on 25.11.2025, again rejecting the claim solely on the grounds of limitation.

The State of Uttarakhand filed this intra-court appeal challenging the Single Judge’s directions.

Whether the delay of 383 days in filing the intra-court appeal should be condoned.

Whether the state authorities were justified in rejecting the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment solely on the grounds of limitation, despite the prior directions of the Single Judge.

The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (as amended in 2010), specifically Rule 5(1)(iii) regarding the five-year limitation period for applications.

The legal principles established by the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey & others v. State of U.P. & others (2014), which provides guidelines for granting relaxation to the time limit for compassionate appointment in cases of undue hardship.

The Court first condoned the 383-day delay in filing the appeal, finding the explanation satisfactory.

On the merits, the Court observed that the Secretary’s order dated 25.11.2025 was "in teeth of" (in direct violation of) the Single Judge’s order, as it repeated the same ground of limitation that had already been set aside.

The Division Bench noted that the Single Judge had specifically directed the authorities to consider the material on record to determine if relaxation of the five-year limit was warranted based on hardship.

The State Counsel conceded that the Secretary had failed to properly accord this consideration as per the law laid down in Shiv Kumar Dubey.

Consequently, the Court found it necessary to ensure the authorities perform a substantive review of the hardship factors rather than rejecting the claim on technical procedural grounds.

The Secretary must specifically evaluate the factors of "undue hardship" and the possibility of time relaxation in light of the Shiv Kumar Dubey precedent.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.