SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(All) 2092

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sabhajeet Yadav
SHIV PRASAD
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 06 May 2009
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15252 of 2008

Advocates Appeared:
Dinesh Rai,

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an adopted child is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the relevant rules and laws, and the pendency of a suit by another individual claiming to be the legal representative does not affect this entitlement.

Headnote:

Adoption - Compassionate Appointment - U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Sections 12 and 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, claiming to be the adopted son and dependent of a deceased government employee, sought compassionate appointment. The appointment was deferred due to the pendency of a suit filed by another individual claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased employee.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, being the adopted son, was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The court also held that the pendency of the suit filed by the other individual did not justify deferring the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as the adopted son, was entitled to compassionate appointment despite the pendency of a suit filed by another individual claiming to be the legal representative of the deceased employee.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and Sections 12 and 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 to establish the legal rights of the adopted son in claiming compassionate appointment. The court also emphasized that the pendency of the suit by the other individual did not affect the petitioner's entitlement to compassionate appointment.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order deferring the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's claim within two months, ignoring the pendency of the suit filed by the other individual.

SABHAJEET YADAV, J.

By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter/communication of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Obra Dam Khand, Obra, Sonebhadra dated 23. 2. 2008 wherein it is stated that the compassionate appointment of petitioner would be considered after the decision in Original Suit No. 631 of 2004 instituted by Sri Mohan Prasad son of Jaipati in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria. The aforesaid letter was communicated to the petitioner in pursuance of direction given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 58491 of 2007 decided on 28. 1. 2007, earlier filed by petitioner.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Sri Triveni Prasad, who was a permanent class IV employee in the office of Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Obra Dam, Obra, district Sonebhadra/respondent no. 2, died while in service on 4. 10. 2003. The petitioner claims to be adopted son and dependent of said Triveni Prasad thus moved an application in the office of respondent no. 2 for his appointment on compassionate ground against class IV post on 13. 1. 2004. Since no action was taken by the respondent no. 2 for appointment of petitioner in spite of several representations and reminders, he filed writ petition referred herein before and while deciding said writ petition vide order dated 28. 11. 2007 this Court has directed the respondent no. 2 to decide the claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner within a period of three months. In pursuance thereof vide impugned order/letter dated 23. 2. 2008 the respondent no. 2 while deciding the representation of the petitioner has deferred the consideration of claim of compassionate appointment of petitioner and declined to appoint him at the moment on account of pendency of Suit No. 631 of 2004 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Deoria instituted by Sri Mohan Prasad son of Jaipati @ Jairasi Prasad respondent no. 3, hence this petition.

3. It is stated in writ petition that Late Triveni Prasad adopted the petitioner as his son during the life time of his wife when the petitioner was only two years of age. The adoption was made according to rites and after adoption, the petitioner has started living with his adoptive father and mother. The adoption deed was also got regisrered by Triveni Prasad, adoptive father of the petitioner which is on record as Annexure-2 of the writ petition. It is also stated that the wife of Triveni Prasad i. e. adoptive mother of petitioner had died earlier, therefore, the petitioner was only heir and legal representative of his adoptive father Triveni Prasad. Thus in his service book, he had also recorded the name of petitioner for the purpose of benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity as well as for family pension. A copy of relevant extract of service book of Late Triveni Prasad is on record as Annexure-3 of the writ petition. It is also stated that the adoption of petitioner as son of Triveni Prasad was entered in the school register wherein the name of Triveni Prasad has been shown as father of petitioner. Even in the copy of family register issued by Gram Panchayat Mohan Mundera Vikas Khand, Rampur, district Deoria, which is native place of Triveni Prasad, the petitioner has been shown as adopted son of Late Triveni Prasad. A copy of family register issued by Gram Panchayat Mohan Mundera Vikas Khand, Rampur is on record as Annexure-5 of the writ petition.

4. In para 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that respondent no. 3 Mohan Prasad has no concerned with Late Triveni Prasad as he does not come within the purview of family of Triveni Prasad as defined under U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Even in suit instituted by respondent no. 3 he has shown himself as son of Jaipati and not as son of Late Triveni Prasad. True copy of the plaint of suit no. 631 of 2004 instituted by Mohan Prasad in Civil Court, Deoria is on record as Annexure-8 of the writ petition. It is f














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top