Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—The present writ petition has been filed in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and to quash the orders dated 14.10.1999 and 11.6.1999.

2. The counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.

3. The case of the petitioner No. 2 is that he is adopted son of late Brij Bihari Pandey, who was working as Constable in Civil Police and died on 12.12.1997.

4. This petition is being filed by late Smt. Devanti Devi alias Damyanti Pandey, wife of Sri Brij Bihari Pandey alongwith petitioner No. 2-Sri Vijay Prakash Pandey (adopted son of deceased employee). Sri Brij Bihari Pandey in his life time has desired to adopt a son and in this regard he talked and convinced Sri Shashi Kant Pandey for adoption of his elder son Vijay Prakash Pandey (petitioner No. 2) and in this regard adoption ceremony was solemnized in the presence of Pandit and other members of the village which is known as “Datta Homam”. For a valid adoption, the physical act of giving and taking is an essential requisite ceremony, imperative in all adoptions. And this requisite is satisfied in its essence on expression of consent or an executed deed of adoption.

5. The said documents regarding adoption has been brought on the record as Annexure 1 to the present writ petition.

6. The said documents were prepared on 11.10.1997 and immediately thereafter Sri Brij Bihari Pandey, the father of petitioner No. 2 died on 12.12.1997. An application dated 13.1.1998 had been moved by Smt. Damyanti Pandey for registration of the said documents and the same was registered on 16.1.1998. She had also moved an application before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mau for succession certificate in favour of the petitioner No. 2 (her adopted son) and finally name of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had been mutated in family register. After due verification and enquiry the District Magistrate, Mau has also issued succession certificate in favour of the petitioners.

7. In this background, petitioner No. 1 had moved an application to the U.P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad to consider the case of the petitioner for family pension and in response the Finance Controller had also informed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia for incorporation of her adopted son’s name for family pension. In this regard a legal opinion had also been sought by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia vide his letter dated 6.11.1998 from the Senior Prosecution Officer and finally through a letter dated 15.11.1998, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ballia had informed to the U.P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad that as per the legal opinion submitted in the present matter, Sri Vijay Prakash Pandey (adopted son of Brij Bihari Pandey) would be entitled for family pension up to his attainment of majority and the family pension benefit may be conferred in his favour. Certain other correspondence took place between the department but finally the Finance Controller, U.P. Police Head Quarter, Allahabad, vide order dated 14.10.1999 had declined for giving family pension to the adopted son, specially on the ground that his adoption deed had not been executed in his life time and the same had been executed after the demise of an employee (Sri Brij Bihari Pandey) and therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit.

8. He further states that under the Hindu Law an adopted son continues the line of the adoptive father for secular and spiritual purposes and when a widow adopts a son to her husband, the doctrine of relation back makes sonship retroactive from the moment of the death of the late husband. The adopted son is deemed to have been born on the death of the adoptive father

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in the present matter, no doubt that an employee who had died on 12.12.1997, but in fact in his life time, the adoption had been decided between husband and wife and the documents had been executed in