IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with the legal provisions of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 for a valid adoption claim, and the importance of immediate action and consideration of the financial condition of the deceased's family in matters concerning compassionate appointment.

ORDER :

1. This petition has been filed for grant of compassionate appointment and to set aside the order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure-P/1) whereby claim of the petitioner that he is the adopted son of deceased Lila Ram Tandon, Head Constable, who died in harness on 31st July, 2014, was declined.

2. Facts of the case are that late Lila Ram Tandon was working as Head Constable in the Department of Home, who died in harness on 31st July, 2014. The petitioner claiming himself to be adopted son of the deceased moved an application for compassionate appointment on 29th October, 2014 along with certificate of the Gram Panchayat and other documents in support of his claim. However, the said application was rejected by the respondents on 30th October, 2014 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish the relationship between him and the deceased employee as father and adopted son, and further that the petitioner has earlier applied for compassionate appointment being brother-in-law of the deceased. When the said claim was not accepted, he has taken another ground claiming himself to be adopted son. Against the said rejection, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.6578/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.1.2016 with a direction that the competent authority ought to have granted proper and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to establish the relationship with the deceased employee and the respondent authorities should have held enquiry in that regard. Thereafter in pursuance of the said direction, a Committee has been constituted on 3rd March, 2016 (Annexure-P/3).

3. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.80- A/2016 along with the wife of the deceased employee namely, Smt. Radha Bai by impleading his natural father Suraj Lal Madhukar and mother Smt. Rambha Devi and the State before 10th Civil Judge, Class- II, Bilaspur and the said civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.6.2016 (Annexure-P/5) by observing that though the petitioner has claimed that he was adopted by the deceased employee in the year 1997 at the age of 5-6 years, but in his school records, the names of his natural father and mother were continued in the documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/5) and further that no information was given by the deceased employee to the respondent department about such adoption, because of which it was presumed that the suit was collusive in nature. The said judgment was challenged by way of an appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the CPC (Annexure-P/7) before the 6th Additional District Judge vide MJC No.149/2017.

4. It is very surprising to note that Shri Rakesh Kashyap, Advocate, has filed the said appeal and caused his appearance before the Court as per the order sheet dated 30th March, 2017 which is annexed in this petition. During the pendency of said appeal, the same Advocate has also filed similar nature of civil suit before 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur viz Civil Suit No.128-A/2016 on 9th September, 2016. The said civil suit was compromised before the National Lok Adalat, Bench No.6 cum 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. It is also surprising to note that in the said civil suit, the cause title reflects that the plaintiffs of the earlier suit i.e. the petitioner and wife of the deceased, who were together earlier in the civil suit No.80-A/2016, have changed their status and the wife of the deceased has been impleaded as defendant No.1 in the later suit. On the basis of compromise, the National Lok Adalat Bench No.6 allowed the said compromise and passed an order that petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased employee and defendant No.1 Smt. Radha Bai. It was also declared that the petitioner and wife of the deceased employee are joint owner of the property (Schedule-A). In such backdrop of the case, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) has been challenged in this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no