IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
P. Sai Siva Karthik - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 13953 of 2021
Decided On : 18-10-2024
Compassionate Appointment - Adoption - G.O.Ms.No.612 - The court interpreted the provisions of G.O.Ms.No.612, emphasizing that the adoption's registration date should not negate the eligibility for compassionate appointment, as the adoption occurred prior to the government employee's death.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, adopted by his uncle, sought compassionate appointment after his adopted father's death. The authorities denied the request based on the adoption's registration date, which was less than five years before the father's death.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adoption occurred in 2003, despite the registration in 2017, and ruled that the petitioner was eligible for compassionate appointment, as the adoption was valid and genuine.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is eligible for compassionate appointment despite the adoption being registered less than five years before the death of the government employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the timing of the adoption's registration should not affect the petitioner's eligibility for compassionate appointment, as the adoption was valid and occurred prior to the employee's death.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be appointed in a suitable post.
ORDER :
K. Manmadha Rao, J.
This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner’s biological parents are Sai Ramesh Babu and Padmalatha. The younger brother of his father Satish Babu did not marry. In the year 2003, on the advice of elders, the petitioner was given in adoption to his paternal uncle Satish Babu. All the formalities of adoption were conducted as per the traditional riots and customs. Therefore, this adoption took place on 09.05.2003. When the adoption took place then the petitioner was minor, hence, this adoption deed was registered on 14.03.2017. In the year 2019, the petitioner’s adopted father passed away. He was still in service. As the adopted son, the petitioner is eligible for the benefits of payment of monies and compassionate appointment. When the petitioner made a request for the retirement benefits and Compassionate appointment, he was advised by his colleagues and officers of the Office of Respondent Nos.3 and 5 to get declaration, the petitioner filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.131.2019 for the declaration of legal heir etc. After pronouncement of judgment, the petitioner submitted the application for Compassionate appointment as well as the retirement benefits. Accordingly, all the retirement benefits like Gratuity, Commutation of pension etc., were paid to me. It is stated that, the 5th Respondent sent a communication to the 3rd Respondent on 04.05.2020 stating clearly that the petitioner is the adopted son of P. Satish Babu and adoption deed was also registered on 14.03.2017. An enquiry of the registered document from the records of concerned registrar and actual relationship of deceased P. Satish Babu was ordered to establish the genuinity. Basing on the report of the enquiry committee, the 5th Respondent addressed a letter to the 4th Respondent clearly stating that during the enquiry, the deed was found to be genuine and it was clearly stated that the suitable job under Compassionate appointment may be given to the petitioner. But, utter shock and surprise, the petitioner received orders from the 4th respondent that he is not eligible for provision of compassionate appointment as the adoption was not taken place as per the stipulated period mentioned in the G.O.Ms.No.612 dated 30.10.1991. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed.
3. The Counter affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. While denying the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, the suit which was filed by the petitioner be and the same was decreed by declaring the plaintiff as legal heir of the deceased Panuganti Satheesh Babu. The defendants do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.3,483/- towards the cost of suit. This clearly shows the game played by Mr. P. Sai Siva Karthik to get the case disposed of by exparte (decreed) not producing his parents before the Judge as defendants. Basing on the Court Orders, he obtained, Family member Certificate, no earning member certificate, no property certificate, Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificate & Certificate of residence from Tahsildar, Gudur and produced the same to this office for pay of dues due to his deceased father P. Satheesh Babu and also provide Job on compassionate grou
The court established that the timing of adoption registration does not negate eligibility for compassionate appointment if the adoption occurred before the government employee's death.
The central legal point established is the validity of the adoption and the entitlement of the adopted daughter to compassionate appointment as a dependent of the deceased government servant.
Legal adoption for compassionate appointment must occur during the lifetime of the deceased government servant to qualify as a dependent under the Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of Dependents of....
An adopted child must be legally adopted by the deceased-employee during his lifetime to be considered for compassionate appointment, as per Clause 2.5 of the Policy dated 29-9-2014.
Compassionate appointment requires valid legal adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, and failure to establish such validity disqualifies applicants from entitlement under the relevan....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.