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 appreciate second proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 that puts an embargo upon the aspirant to explain the reasons and give proper justification in writing regarding the delay caused in making the application for employment after expiry of the time limit fixed for making it. 7. 7. Suffice to mention, in the batch of writ petitions, the State Government declined the request for appointment on compassionate grounds by arriving at the conclusion that the application to have such appointment was not given within the prescribed period of 5 years and the same was challenged with submission that the State Government has not examined the undue hardship caused to the person seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. 8. While examining merits of the case, we would like to state that an appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right being a device developed to meet immediate harness caused to family of the deceased government servant due to his/her untimely death. It is only extension of helping hand by the employer to the family of the deceased government servant, which is facing harness on the count of death of sole bread earner. Such harness does not remain in currency for hears together. It would also be appropriate to state that the appointment on compassionate grounds is not a regular mode of appointment and essentially, it is a deviation from the principles of equality looking to certain peculiar circumstances. 9. Under the Rules of 1974 by the force of Rule 5, member of the family of a deceased government servant may claim for appointment within a period of 5 years from the date of death of such government servant. The period aforesaid is quite a reasonable and relaxation thereto can be extended only in exceptional circumstances. Such exceptional circumstances are also required to be advanced by the person, who is pleading undue hardship. If an aspirant claiming appointment under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 has not pleaded undue hardship, then there is no need for the State Government to examine the case as per first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974. As a matter of fact, a case for appointment on compassionate grounds is required to be forwarded to the State Government only if the aspirant for appointment has claimed for relaxation as per first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 by pleading the reasons as required under second proviso. As a matter of fact, a case for appointment on compassionate grounds is required to be forwarded to the State Government only if the aspirant for appointment has claimed for relaxation as per first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 by pleading the reasons as required under second proviso. If no claim is made for relaxation with reasons, explanation and documentary evidence as required under second proviso, then such case is not required to be forwarded to be considered for grant of relaxation on the count of undue hardship. If any person while seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of 1974 has not extended reasons, explanation and documentary evidence to have relaxation, then such application must be rejected being barred by the time limit given under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974. 10. In the instant matters, if no claim is made by the respondent-petitioner for invoking relaxation clause by satisfying requirements of second proviso, then there is no need to forward the same to the State Government to consider the case in light of first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974. 11. At this juncture, it would also be appropriate to state that while considering the case of undue hardship several factors are required to be kept in mind including economic status of the family, the term of relaxation desired and the stage on which relaxation is claimed. 12. As already stated, learned single Bench has directed to forward the case of the respondent-petitioner to examine undue hardship without arriving at the conclusion that whether any relaxation is claimed by her or not by pleading the undue hardship. 13. In view of it, we deem it appropriate to modify the directions given by learned single Bench to the extent that case of the respondent-petitioner for compassionate appointment shall be forwarded to the State Government to consider the grant of relaxation as per first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 if any undue hardship has been pleaded with a specific request for relaxation of time period prescribed under the rule concerned by satisfying the requirements of second proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974. 14. The appeal with the modification above, stands disposed of.