Raj Kumar vs Chairman-cum-Managing Director and Another

Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.—In this writ petition filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate ground. As per facts of the case, the petitioner''s father Rupesh Chandra Purohit died while in service when he was working as Assistant Engineer, 400 KV GSS, Jaipur under the control of the respondents. The petitioner is adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit because he was legally adopted by him under registered adoption deed dated 04.06.1999. After the death of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit an application was moved by the petitioner to the respondents for providing him appointment on compassionate ground being adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit on the basis of registered adoption deed; but, no heed was given by the respondents upon the application filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner filed representation before Hon''ble Chief Minister.

On 04.09.2004 by an order/official note the Secretary (Admn.) of the respondent department informed the office of the Chief Minister that the petitioner has not been declared legal heir by the competent authority, therefore, his case cannot be considered on the basis of adoption deed. After receiving the above information from the office of the Chief Minister, the petitioner preferred a civil suit for declaration of adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit and the said suit was finally decided by Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur on 01.12.2009, in which, the said Court declared the petitioner as adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit. The petitioner has placed on record the said judgment dated 01.12.2009 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur, which is Annex.-5.

After the said judgment, the petitioner again moved an application along with copy of the judgment passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur and, then, repeatedly made prayer to the respondents for providing him appointment on compassionate ground; but, inspite of sending representation and notice for demand of justice, no order has been passed by the respondents for providing him appointment. Therefore, in this writ petition prayer has been made by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to provide appointment on compassionate ground.

After issuing notice to the respondents a reply has been filed by the respondents, in which, the respondents are not disputing the fact that late Rupesh Chandra Purohit was working as Assistant Engineer, Circle 400 KV GSS, Jaipur in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board and he died while in service on 17.07.1999 but the fact that in the application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground he has mentioned his date of birth as 06.05.1969 and petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of adoption-deed dated 03.06.1999, therefore, obviously the adoption of the petitioner was not proper because on 03.06.1999 the petitioner was 30 years of age. The case of the petitioner was rejected vide letter dated 02.11.1999 for the reason that adoption was not in accordance with Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. According to the respondents, as per Section 10 of the Act of 1956 there is strict provision for adoption of child being more than 15 years of age in absence of any custom or usage applicable to the party.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if a declaration is made by the civil Court for declaring the petitioner as adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit, the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have carefully considered all the facts and ground taken in the writ petition.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit. It is also not in dispute that late Rupesh Chandra Purohit was working on the post of Assistant Engineer under the control of the respondents. The denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is that on the day on which the petitioner was adopted he was 30 years of age and as per Section 10 of the Act of 1956 no person can be adopted who is more than 15 years of age as on the date of adoption. But, in this case, when the respondents refused to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, then, the petitioner preferred a suit before the civil Court and said suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 104/2006 and the same was finally decided by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur on 01.12.2009, in which, the petitioner is declared legally adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit.

I have perused the judgment rendered by the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur (Annex.-5), in which, the trial Court observed while deciding issue No. 3 that the petitioner was adopted as per Hindu custom and the customs of the Pushkarna society in the year 1983 and, at that time, the age of the petitioner was only 12 - 13 years; meaning thereby, the civil decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner after due examination of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for providing appointment on compassionate ground.

In the considered opinion of this Court there is no jurisdiction left with the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground because upon the objection raised by the respondents the petitioner sought declaration from the civil Court and vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2009 the Addl. District Judge No. 3, Jodhpur declared that the petitioner is legally adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit while giving following finding upon issue No. 1:

In view of above, I see no reason to deny the right of appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner being adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit who died while in service on 17.07.1999 in accordance with the rules. It is made clear that the petitioner was within age limit for appointment when he moved the application in 1999. Therefore, at the time of considering the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground the question of upper age limit will not come in way because the petitioner was illegally denied appointment when he was within age limit.