Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 859 (PAT)

Chandra Kala Devi v. State Of Bihar

2004-08-25

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. All these three writ applications have been filed for common cause and on common facts and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. 3. The question which has fallen for consideration in these cases is as to whether adopted son of the deceased Government servant would be entitled for employment on compassionate ground. 4. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the claimants-petitioners are adopted sons of the deceased Government servants, who died in harness and their claims for appointment on compassionate ground were considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee and by the orders impugned, their prayers have been rejected on the ground that they would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as they are adopted sons of the deceased Government servants. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the claimants are adopted sons of the deceased Government servants and they are as good as natural sons and, therefore, their claims could not have been denied by the respondents-authorities. It is further submitted that status of the claimants as adopted sons has not been questioned from any corner and once declaration was given by the claimants that they are adopted sons of the deceased Government cervants. their claims could not have been rejected. 6. Counter affidavits-have been filed on behalf of the respondents From the tenor of the counter affidavits. it appears that the claims of the beneficiaries have been rejected in view of the stipulation made in the circular dated 5.10.1991 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna wherein it is stated that the adopted son would not be treated as dependent of the deceased Government employee and in support of this contention, learned Standing Counsel No. ill has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. [ 2004(2) PLJR 19 ]. 7. The question raised in these applications has been considered by this court time without number and it has been held that adopted son of a deceased Government employee for all practical purpose is as good as natural son and he comes in the category of the dependents. 8. [ 2004(2) PLJR 19 ]. 7. The question raised in these applications has been considered by this court time without number and it has been held that adopted son of a deceased Government employee for all practical purpose is as good as natural son and he comes in the category of the dependents. 8. In case of Kamal Ranjan V/s. State of Bihar and others [1994(2) PLJR 536], a Bench of this Court held that an adopted son of a deceased Government servant dying in harness comes in the category of the dependents and he is entitled for employment on compassionate ground and further held that the circular dated 5.10.1991 issued by the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna cannot make classification or distinction between a natural son and an adopted son under the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and thus, that portion of the circular whereby and whereunder an adopted son was not treated as dependent of the deceased Government servant was set aside. 9. A Bench of this Court again in the case of Madhusudan Mishra V/s. State of Bihar and others ( 1996 BBCJ 87 ) endorsed the same view as has been taken in the case of Kamai Ranjan (supra). A learned Single Judge of this Court has again reiterated the same view as has been taken by the Bench of this Court, in the case of Prashuram Prasad V/s. State of Bihar & Ors. [ 2004(3) PLJR 417 ] and in CWJC No. 3600 of 1999 (Most. Buchia Devi V/s. State of Bihar and others). 10. In the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari (supra) upon which reliance has been placed by learned Standing Counsel No. III, a Bench of this Court held that the rules framed by the Bihar State Electricity Board cannot be interfered with and this Court cannot compel the employer to make appointment on compassionate ground de hors the Rules. 10. In the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari (supra) upon which reliance has been placed by learned Standing Counsel No. III, a Bench of this Court held that the rules framed by the Bihar State Electricity Board cannot be interfered with and this Court cannot compel the employer to make appointment on compassionate ground de hors the Rules. A Bench of this Court while disposing of the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari (supra) has also taken into consideration the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan (supra) and has distinguished the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari from that of Kamal Ranjan and thus, it appears that the decisions, as referred to above, rendered by this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan (supra), Madhusudan Mishra (supra) and in the case of Prashuram Prasad (supra) and in the case of Most. Buchia Devi (supra) cover the field of these cases as well and they hold good. 11. At this juncture, it would also be pertinent to mention here that the State Government has framed rules for appointment on compassionate ground where the dependents have been defined and son of the deceased Government servant has been mentioned as one of the dependents. There is no specific stipulation in the Rules that the adopted son of the deceased Government servant would not be one of the dependents and the circular of the State Government, as referred to above, thus, would not take away the effect of the provisions of the Rules framed by the State Government nor it will have the overriding effect upon the same. This Court, in this view of the matter, in the case of Kamal Ranjan (supra) set aside that part of the circular which excludes the adopted son from the purview of the dependents. 12. Having heard counsel for the parties at length and considering the facts and circumstances of the case it is held that the question which has been raised in these applications is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court, as referred to above, and the circular dated 5.10.1991, thus, would not come in the way of the respondents-authorities to consider the cases of the claimants-petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further held that the ratio laid down by a Bench of this Court in the case of Deepak Kumar Tiwari (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of these cases. 13. For the reasons aforementioned and in view of the legal propositions, as referred to above, the claimants are held to be dependents of the deceased Government servants on account of whose death they had applied for appointment on compassionate ground and they would be entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 14. In the result, these applications are allowed. The impugned orders as contained in Annexure-8 (CWJC No. 1096/ 2004), Annexure-3 (CWJC No. 2576/2004) and Annexure-8 (CWJC No. 1299/2004) are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the authorities concerned to consider the cases of the claimants-petitioners afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. This exercise, however, must be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.