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

2022 Supreme(MP) 135

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Rusia and Amarnath (Kesharwani), JJ.
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, District Ujjain v. Saddam Hasam
Writ Appeal No. 1710 of 2019 (I); Decided on 11.4.2022*

Advocates:
Girish Patwardhan with Ms. Ankita Verma for appellants; Rajeev Kumar Jain for respondent No. 1; Manish Nair, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. 2/State.

Headnote:

(1) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 -- S. 10 -- adoption of Muslim child -- Hindu can adopt only Hindu -- deceased Hindu and her alleged adopted son Muslim -- he could not have been adopted by deceased -- not legally adopted son of deceased. [Paras 8 to 10]

(2) Civil Services -- compassionate appointment -- Hindu lady serving in Municipal Corporation died -- alleged adopted son a Muslim -- could not have been adopted by deceased -- sought compassionate appointment -- as per clause 2.5 of policy, he is not entitled to compassionate appointment as he was not legally adopted son of deceased. [Paras 8 to 10]

(3) Succession Act, 1925 -- S. 372 -- Hindu lady serving in Municipal Corporation -- nominated respondent No. 1 in service record as adopted son -- he was not legally adopted son because she was Hindu and he is Muslim -- she died -- succession certificate granted in favour of respondent No. 1 -- entitled to receive terminal dues. [Paras 2.2 & 7]

¼1½ fganw nRrd v©j Òj.k&i¨"k.k vfèkfu;e] 1956 & èkkjk 10 & eqfLye ckyd dk nÙkd xzg.k & fganw d¢oy fganw nRrd xzg.k dj ldrk gS & e`rdk fganw v©j mldk vfÒdfFkr nRrd iq= eqfLye & e`rdk }kjk og nRrd ugha fy;k tk ldrk Fkk & e`rdk dk oSèk iq= ughaA ¼iSjk 8 ls 10½

¼2½ flfoy lsok & vuqdaik fu;qfDr & uxjikfyd fuxe esa lsokjr fganw efgyk dh e`R;q g¨ xà & vfÒdfFkr nRrd iq= eqfLye & e`rdk }kjk nRrd ugha fy;k tk ldrk Fkk & vuqdaik fu;qfDr dh ÃIlk dh & uhfr d¢ [kaM 2-5 d¢ vuqlkj og vuqdaik fu;qfDr dk gdnkj ugha D;¨afd og e`rdk dk oSèk nRrd iq= ughaA ¼iSjk 8 ls 10½

¼3½ mÙkjkfèkdkj vfèkfu;e] 1925 & èkkjk 372 & fganw efgyk uxjikfyd fuxe esa lsokjr & lsok vfÒys[k esa vius iq= d¢ :i esa çR;FkÊ Øekad 1 d¨ ukekafdr fd;k & og oSèk nRrd iq= ugha D;¨afd og fganw Fkh vkSj ;g eqfLye gS & efgyk dh e`R;q g¨ xà & çR;FkÊ Øekad 1 d¢ i{k esa mÙkjkfèkdkj çek.ki= çnRr & og lsokar ns; çkIr djus dk gdnkjA ¼iSjk 2-2 rFkk 7½

ORDER

Rusia, J:- 1. The present writ appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 3.4.2019 passed by the Writ Court, whereby the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred as writ petitioner) with a direction to consider the application for compassionate appointment as per para – 3 of the Policy dated 21.5.2002.

2. The facts of the case in short are as under:-

2.1. Late Smt. Vimla Bai W/o Chhotelal was serving on the post of Safai Karamchari / Sweeper in the services of Ujjain Municipal Corporation. She died on 25.8.2014 in a road accident while in service. According to the writ petitioner, before the death, Vimla Bai had submitted an affidavit before the Municipal Corporation disclosing the name of Saddham Hasam as her adopted son and requested for entering his name as a nominee in all the service records. On the basis of the aforesaid affidavit , the name of the writ petitioner had been recorded in the service record as the son of Smt. Vimla Bai. After the death of Vimla Bai i.e. 25.8.2014, the writ petitioner has submitted an application seeking a compassionate appointment on 10.10.2014 along with all necessary documents. In the said application, he has mentioned his religion as Islam.

2.2. The writ petitioner has also approached the civil Court by way of an application under section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to get a succession certificate. The said application was registered in the II Civil Judge, Class – I, Ujjain as Succession Case No.16/2015. In the said application, the natural daughter of Vimla Bai and Chhotelal, Sunita @ Soni W/o Mehmudal Hasan was impleaded as non-applicant. The marriage of Sunita @ Soni was held with Mehmudal Hasan and the writ petitioner is their second son. Sunita @ Soni in her reply admitted that the petitioner was brought up as a son by late Vimla Bai and she had nominated him in the service record as her son. By order dated 21.9.2015, Civil Court has granted the succession certificate in favour of the writ petitioner to get the gratuity, provident fund, earned leave etc. to the tune of Rs.4,36,579/- along with interest from the Municipal Corporation. The Municipal Corporation has preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.1/2017 against the said order before the Additional District Judge, Ujjain. Vide order 28.6.2017, the appeal has been dismissed.

2.3. Vide order dated 16.5.2018, the Deputy Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ujjain has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner under Clause – IV of the Policy framed for grant of Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 29.9.2014 on the ground his natural father viz Mehmudal Hasan is already in the serving in the services of Municipal Corporation.

2.4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the writ petitioner approached the Writ Court by filing a writ petition.

2.5. The Municipal Corporation has filed a reply to the writ petition by submitting that the writ petitioner is not a biological son of Vimla Bai. In the cause title, he has written the name of his father Mehmudal Hasan as his father, therefore, he is not entitled to get the compassionate appointment on account of the death of Vimla Bai. It is submitted that the adoption of the petitioner is not valid under the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Even otherwise also the biological father of the writ petitioner is Mehmudal Hasan is already working as an Assistant Revenue Inspector, therefore, under Clause – IV of the Policy, he is not entitled to a compassionate appointment.

3. After considering the aforesaid reply, vide order dated 3.4.2019, the Writ Court has allowed the writ petition on the ground the respondents therein have rejected the representation relying on a policy dated 29.9.2014, therefore, they cannot supplement the reasons which are not in the impugned in order to defend it. The Writ Court has placed rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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