Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. and others

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order impugned dated 29.1.2009 by which the claim of the petitioner, who is the adopted for of one Natthu Ram, has been denied only on the ground that the petitioner does not come under the definition of the ''Family'' of the rules of 1974, therefore, no appointment to the adopted son can be given.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there was a proper adoption during the life time of the adopting father of the petitioner, which is apparent from the order dated 25.10.2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalaun at Orai.

Further reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Write Petition No. 15252 of 2008 decided on 6.5.2009 in which the Hon''ble Single Judge has taken a view that adopted son will come under the definition of ''Family'' under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, if there is a proper adoption. While interpreting the rule, this Court has taken a view that the claim of the petitioner may be considered according to law under the rules and it cannot be rejected only on the ground that Petitioner is an adopted son.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel is not in a position to rebut the analogy which has been taken by the Hon''ble Single Judge.

After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, it appears that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that he is an adopted son. The claim of the petitioner has not been considered strictly in accordance with rules. The view to this effect finds support from the several decisions of this Court rendered in the case of Sunil Saxena v. State of U.P. 1994 (68) FLR 283 (All.), Ravindra Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others 2005 (4) ESC (All) 2706 : 2005 (61) ALR 3.

In view of the aforesaid fact and circumstances, I am of view that the order passed by the respondent cannot be sustained. Therefore, it is hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No. 5 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

No order is passed as to costs.