Heard Counsel for the peti­tioner and Standing Counsel.

2. Being dissatisfied with the order dated 16.6.2008 passed by the Executive Engineer, Nirman Khand-2, Lok Nirman Vibhag, Faizabad, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and clearence of dues of his late father has been rejected, the petitioner has filed the instant writ peti­tion.

3. Late Ram Chandra Singh was working as Peon under Executive Engineer in Ganghut, Milkipur, Faizabad. He expired on 25.6.2005, while being in service. The de­ceased in his life time and his wife had adopted the petitioner as son on 14.1.1989 through an adoption deed under the provi­sions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. After the death of Ram Chandra Singh, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment after complet­ing all necessary formalities. The Executive Engineer by his order dated 16.10.2006 re­jected the claim of the petitioner. The order dated 16.10.2006 was assailed in writ peti­tion No. 9384[SSJ of 2006-This Court vide an order dated 17.3.2008 while quashing the aforesaid order dated 16.10.2006 directed for deciding the representation.

4. In compliance of the order dated 17.3.2008, the petitioner submitted a compre­hensive representation to the authority con­cerned. The Executive Engineer again by the impugned order "rejected the claim.

5. Contention pf the Counsel for the peti­tioner that action of the Executive Engineer in rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the adoption deed is not regis­tered is wholly arbitrary and illegal as he com­pletely overlooked the fact that the compe­tent Court has issued Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner holding that the petitioner is entitled for all the post-retiral benefits of his late father, after declaring the petitioner as legal heir. He further submitted that a bare perusal of the Succession Certifi­cate as issued to the petitioner will indicate that the petitioner has been authorized to re­ceive Rs. 3,50,4817- as dues of late Ram Chandra Singh.

6. On behalf of the respondents, it has been argued that as per amended Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 registration of the adoption deed is must and as such unregistered adoption deed does not have any value in the eyes of law. In the present case, the petitioner has claimed ap­pointment on the basis of unregistered docu­ment, which is not a valid document. How­ever, the factum of Succession Certificate under the provisions of Indian Succession Act, in favour of the petitioner declaring him as a legal heir, having been granted by the competent Court has not been disputed.

7. The question whether an adopted son is entitled for compassionate appointment or not came up for consideration in Sinhasan Gupta v. State of U.P. and another [(1996) 1 UPLBEC 4 and this Court while answering in affirmative relied upon an earlier decision rendered in Sunil Saxena v. State of U.P. re­ported in 1994 (68) FLR 283, which reads as under:-

"another, objection raised by the respon­dents about the petitioner being adoptd son and not the real son of the deceased is not tenable. After adoption, the petitioner is en­grafted in the family of the deceased, who was his adopted father. Under Hindu Law he gets all the rights, privileges and obligations of a son. Therefore, there is no difference be­tween a real son and adopted son. Son would include adopted son if the adoption is valid."

8. The decision rendered in Sinhasan Gupta v. State of U.P. and another (supra) has been followed by this Court in a subsequent decision rendered in Rakhi Singh v. State of U.P. and others; [2006(24) LCD 182]: (2006 (6) ALJ (DOC) 306).

9. At this juncture it would be useful to refer some of the provisions of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 which was enacted with a view to amend and codify the law relating to adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. Chapter II deals with the adoption and Section 5 of the Act says that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document