Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Chaudhary, J.
Mahendra Kumar Gautam - Petitioner
Vs.
State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home & Ors. - Respondent
SERVICE SINGLE No. - 2842 of 2021
Decided On : 25-02-2021
Registration Act, 1908 – Section 17(f) read with Section 23 – Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 16 – Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 – U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendments) Act, 1976 – Section 32 – Mandamus – Compassionate Appointment – Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the order passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rai Bareilly, respondent no.3, and for a mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of a compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) – By the impugned order the respondent no.3 has rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 on the ground that late Parsuram expired, while in service, and Mahendra Kumar Gautam, petitioner, was not a member of his family during his lifetime or at the time of his death – The petitioner was never an adopted son and dependent of late Parsuram – Document of adoption was not executed in the lifetime of late Parsuram and is executed by the widow of late Parsuram – Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to an appointment under the Rules of 1974.
Finding of the court: Two questions considered in the said case by the Court were (i) as to whether the appellant had a right to sue and (ii) whether the requisite ceremony of adoption was performed or not. – While considering the second ground, the Court said that the requisite ceremony for adoption was performed. The due execution and registration of adoption deed was proved and evidence given by the defendants has to be presumed to be correct under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. – Therefore, the law settled in the said case is also not applicable to the facts of the present case as due execution of the adoption deed is not proved in the present case. In Lal Behri (Minor) (supra) case the factual controversy was considered and the argument raised in the present writ petition or the provisions referred were also not considered and, thus, said judgment does not apply to the present case. – In Rajendra (supra) case also the deed was duly registered and was duly filed before the consolidation authorities. – Court, therefore, relied upon the same under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. – The question raised in the present writ petition i.e. impact of Section 17(f) read with Section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908 was neither raised nor considered in the said judgment. – Therefore, the same is also not applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, none of the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner have any bearing on the present case. – So far as the succession certificate dated 12.06.2020 issued by the office of District Magistrate, Sitapur is concerned the same also is a document issued on the basis of stand taken by the family members. – The same has no binding effect upon respondents. – The respondents department can individually look into the entire matter and take a stand in accordance with law. The said document is not sufficient to accept the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Rules of 1974. – Court does not find any force in the present writ petition filed by the petitioner and the same is dismissed.
Result: – Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Chaudhary, J.
1. Heard Sri Sameer Kalia and Sri Abhishek Yadav, learned counsels for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing of the order dated 05.12.2020 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rai Bareilly, respondent no.3, and for a mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of a compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police).
3. By the impugned order the respondent no.3 has rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Rules of 1974) on the ground that late Parsuram expired on 15.11.2018, while in service, and Mahendra Kumar Gautam, petitioner, was not a member of his family during his lifetime or at the time of his death. The petitioner was never an adopted son and dependent of late Parsuram. The document of adoption was not executed in the lifetime of late Parsuram and is executed by the widow of late Parsuram. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to an appointment under the Rules of 1974.
4. The facts of the case are that Sri Parsuram was working on the post of Head Constable under respondent no.3 and expired in harness, due to heart failure, on 15.11.2018. Petitioner, on 08.08.2019, applied before respondent no.3 seeking a compassionate appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of police, claiming that he is an adopted son of the deceased employee. The adoption was set up on two different dates. The first adoption set up is on the day of Basant Panchami of the year 2002 in front of the entire village and the second is claimed on 27.04.2011 in presence of the gram pradhan and some other villagers. So far as the first adoption of the year 2002 is concerned, there is no adoption deed of the year 2002. There is an adoption deed concerning the second adoption dated 27.4.2011, but, the same is not a registered document. The only registered document is an adoption deed dated 20.12.2019 presented for registration on 21.12.2019 and registered on 24.12.2019. This registered deed is executed by the natural parents of the petitioner, claiming to have given him in adoption, and by Smt. Prema Devi wife of late Parsuram, claiming to have accepted petitioner in adoption. The said adoption deed states that on Basant Panchami of the year 2002, when petitioner was aged around 5 years, after conducting hawan, puja, etc. in presence of everyone, the adoption took place by both the natural parents and both the adopting parents, i.e., by Smt. Prema Devi as well late Parsuram, who then was alive. The deed further states that the document of adoption could not be registered at that time and, hence, now earlier executed adoption deed with the consent of parties is being presented for registration. The said document at the bottom notes its' date of drafting as 20.12.2019 and not of the year 2002. It does not even contain any signatures of late Parsuram.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based on the aforesaid facts, submits that once there is a duly registered adoption deed, it was incumbent upon the authorities to accept the same. They cannot deny a valid adoption in the existence of a duly registered adoption deed. Reliance is placed upon the U.P. amendment to Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (Adoption Act, 1956). Further, reliance is also placed upon the succession certificate dated 12.06.2020 issued by the office of District Magistrate, Sitapur, which notes the two heirs of late Parsuram as Smt. Prema Devi, his widow, and Sri Mahendra Kumar Gautam, his adopted son. Based on these documents, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is a duly adopted son of late Parsuram and, therefore, he is entitled to appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Reliance is also placed by the petitioner upon the following judgments:-
Point of law: Section 16 of Adoption Act, 1956 and Section 17(1)(f) read with Section 23 of Registration Act, 1908 and, applying the Heydons' Principle, it is clear that the registered adoption deed ....
Registration of adoption deed not mandatory for compassionate appointment; satisfactory proof via Panchayati deed, records, and civil decree suffices if adoption valid pre-employee death.
This judgment clarifies the legal validity of an adoption independent of registration and emphasizes eligibility for compassionate appointment based on adherence to established personal and railway p....
Point of law: Capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption-Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in adoption. Provided that, if he has a ....
The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish valid adoption as per statutory requirements; registered deeds are rebuttable and do not eliminate the need for actual proof.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
