ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Umesh Gajankush, Member (J

1. The applicant before this Tribunal is challenging the impugned communication dated 19.02.2013 issued by the respondent no. 2 by which the claim of the applicant in respect of compassionate appointment, being adopted son of deceased employee was rejected.

2. As per the facts stated in the Original Application, it is submitted that father of the applicant Shri Jivanbhai B Vaghela had expired on 21.09.2011 while in service. Applicant’s father was working as senior Khalasi (Power) at Viramgam in Ahmedabad Division, submitted an application dated 30.06.2011 along with adopted deed to enter applicant name as dependent nominee and legal heir. Further, applicant’s mother submitted a representation on 28.06.2012 for compassionate appointment to the applicant which was rejected vide impugned communication dated 19.02.2013 on the ground that the adoption deed is not valid as per the Hindu Adoption Act and therefore, no case has been made out for grant of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the RBE No. 106/1988 dated 20.05.1988 clearly mentions the condition for the compassionate appointment to the adopted son/daughter and the conditions are (1) There is satisfactory proof of adoption valid legally. (2) The adoption is legally recognized under the personal law governing the Railway servant. (3) The legal adoption process has been completed and has become valid before the date of death/medical decategorisation/medical incapacitation (as the case may be) of the ex-employee. According to the applicant all conditions were satisfied. However, his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected illegally.

2.1 Applicant has also submitted that in view of the order of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.22712/2007 decided on 11.05.2007, he was eligible for consideration of his case on the basis of adoption deed. Applicant further relied on order passed in OA No. 155/2015 in the case of Shakuntalaben K. Chaudhary & Ors Vs Union of India & Ors. decided on 15.07.2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. On the above facts and grounds, applicant has prayed for quashment of the impugned order with a prayer to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment.

3. After notice, official respondents have filed their reply and justified their action. It was submitted that the applicant has shown his name as “Dhaval” stated to be adopted son of late Shri Jivanbhai Vaghela and school name as Dhawal knatilal Rathod. It is submitted that if applicant is adopted son of late Shri Jivanbhai Vaghela, then there cannot be any need for him to mention his school name. On that basis it appears that the official respondents are disputing the adoption of the applicant. It was further submitted that adoption deed is not legal as it was not a registered one. Official respondents have also placed reliance on the conditions mentioned in RBE No. 106/1988 which was relied upon by the applicant. It was also submitted that the death of the employee occurred in the year 2011 and the case of the applicant was rejected in the year 2013, applying concept of the compassionate appointment as per the settled law, alleged applicant’s family is not in need of financial benefit at this protracted stage of death. It was also stated that the judgments relied on by the applicant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the basis of reply, respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Applicant.

4. Thereafter, rejoinder has been filed by the applicant explaining and elaborating the facts. It was submitted that objection regarding name of the applicant in SSC mark sheet is concerned at the time of admission in the school, the authority concerned depends on the birth certificate and accordingly mention the name in the school. Further, affidavit dated 18.03.2019 was also filed along with a copy of transl