Kalu Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.—The petitioner in the capacity of an adopted son of a deceased Government Servant, has approached this court seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (for short the Rules of 1975.)

The grievance expressed by the petitioner in the instant petition is that he was taken in adoption by Kesha Ram who died on January 18, 1973 while working as Forest Guard. At the time of death of Kesha Ram, the petitioner was four years of age. On April 20, 1993, widow of Kesha Ram executed adoption deed and got it registered. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds in the capacity of adopted son of Kesha Ram but the request of the petitioner was turned down on the ground that he was not the near relative of late Kesha Ram.

I have heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record.

Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1975 defines ''family'', which also includes the son adopted according to the provisions of law. It is therefore to be seen whether the petitioner has been legally adopted and what is the effect of registered adoption deed.

According to the petitioner he was four years of age at the time of death of Kesha Ram and was taken in adoption according to the customs during the life time of Kesha Ram. Date of adoption has not been mentioned in the writ petition and copy of adoption deed has also not been filed. Even the date of birth of the petitioner has not been shown. Anyway from the version of the petitioner it is evident that he was born in 1970, when the provisions contained in the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance 1956 (for short the Act of 1956) were in force. The petitioner could not have been taken in adoption according to the customs in view of Section 5 of the Act of 1956 which provides thus-

Adoption to be regulated by this chapter-(1) No adoption shall be made after the commencement of this Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in this chapter, and any adoption made in contravention of the such provisions shall be void.

(2) An adoption which is void shall neither create any rights in the adoptive family in favour of any person which he or she could not have acquired except by reason of the adoption, nor destroy the rights of any person in the family or his or her birth."

In so far as the effect of registered adoption deed dated April 20, 1993 is concerned, I am of the considered view that Kesar Devi had every right to adopt the petitioner for herself u/s 8 of the Act of 1956 but such adoption was effective from the date of adoption as is directed in Section 12 of the Act of 1956, which provides thus-

Effect of adoption-An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purpose with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family.

Thus in view of the aforesaid provision, the petitioner can only be treated the adopted son of Smt. Kesar Devi and not late Kesha as the adoption shall take effect from the date of execution of the adoption deed in the facts and circumstances of this case.

Upshot of the above discussion is that alleged adoption of the petitioner according to custom during the life time of Kesha was void and adoption through registered deed by Smt. Kesar Devi was for herself and prospective. Thus the case of the petitioner is not covered under Rule 2(f) of the Rules of 1975 as he was not adopted according to the provisions of law.

The authorities cited on behalf of the petitioner are distinguishable as the provisions contained in the Act of 1956 were not considered in them.

I do not see any illegality in the letter dated October 27, 1995 (Annexure-10) issued by the Chief Conservator of Forest.

The writ petition stands dismissed. Costs easy.