Rita Srivastava vs State of U.P.and Others

Shri Narayan Shukla, J.—Heard Mr. Shailendra Singh Rajawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22nd December, 2005. Issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur, whereby he has informed the petitioner that her candidature for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants DyinginHarness Rules 1974 has been rejected.

The petitioner submits that she is an adopted daughter of her father namely, Shri Prem Shanker Srivastava, who died in harness on 29.12.2001, while working as a regular collection Amin in district Sitapur the petitioner submits that she possesses the qualification of M.A. and on the death of her father she submitted an application for compassionate appointment but the opposite party No.2 i.e. the District Magistrate Sitapur, asked the petitioner to get the declaration of the relationship between her and the deceased and accordingly the decision shall be taken. The petitioner filed Regular Suit bearing No.243 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sitapur, who dismissed her suit for declaration. Being aggrieved with which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Dsitrict Judge, Sitapur. The Additional District Judge, Sitapur allowed the appeal and decreed the suit and thereby declared the petitioner as legal heir of late Shri Prem Shanker Srivastava, being his adopted daughter. The petitioner submits that after getting declaration in her favour she submitted an application before the authority concerned but by way of impugned order her right of appointment has been refused, on the ground that she does not come under the definition of dependent of the deceased under the Act.

Through the supplementary affidavit the learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Sitapur is having force and till date the same has not been challenged and on the basis of the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, the petitioner is claiming her right of appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Singhasan Gupta v. State of U.P. and another, reported in (1996) UPLBEC 4. In this case the application of the claimant was rejected on the ground that the adopted son is not entitled and eligible to the benefit of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants DyinginHarness Rules, 1974. This Court set aside the order passed by the authority concerned and issued direction to the respondents to reconsider his matter. In the case of Sunil Saxena v. State of U.P., reported in 1994 FLR 283, this Court has held that after adoption the person is engrafted in the family of the deceased. Under Hindu Law he gets all the rights, privileges and obligations of a son, therefore, there is no difference between a real son and adopted son. Son would include adopted son, if the adoption is valid.

The decree passed in favour of the petitioner declaring her is adopted daughter of the deceased, namely, Shri Prem Shanker Srivastava is not disputed. There is also no dispute on the preposition of law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to hereinabove.

Under the circumstances, I hereby quash the order dated 22nd December, 2005 issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Sitapur as well as the order dated 10.3.2006 passed by the Dsitrict Magistrate, in the matter by issuing a writ of certiorari and further issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents to consider the petitioner''s case for compassionate appointment in light of the observations and directions made hereinabove.

The writ petition is allowed.

(Petition allowed)