Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 108 (ALL)

Kumari Vaishali v. State Of U. P.

2020-01-09

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. 1. An application filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, consequent upon the death of his father on 26.7.2019, has been rejected by the Executive Officer Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana, District Meerut by the orders impugned dated 31.11.2019 and 29.11.2019, which are challenged in this petition. The orders impugned record that the father of petitioner No. 1 had obtained appointment on account of misrepresentation inasmuch as the claim for compassionate appointment was allowed on the basis of an adoption deed, which was unregistered. According to the respondents, the father of petitioner no.1 had falsely represented the adoption deed to be registered, whereas the concerned Sub-registrar has certified on 2.3.2019 that the registration of alleged adoption deed is not substantiated from the records. On such ground, claim of petitioner no. 1 for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Affidavits have been exchanged in the matter. I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials on record. 3. Facts, as have emerged on record of this petition, are that one Bhopal Singh was employed in Nagar Palika Parishad, Mawana, District Meerut who died on 24.2.2012. An application for grant of compassionate appointment was filed by son of the deceased employee i.e. Ajit Singh, who happened to be the father of petitioner no. 1 and husband of petitioner no. 2. The claim for compassionate appointment by Ajit Singh was based upon the alleged adoption deed executed in the year 1974. The adoption deed allegedly registered in the year 1975. Relying upon such claim he was granted compassionate appointment on 10.8.2015. Subsequently, some doubts were created with regard to genuineness of the adoption deed and Ajit Singh asserted that adoption deed in his favour was registered on 20.9.1975. The facts in that regard were got verified from the concerned Sub Registrar and it transpired that the deed was actually not registered. The authorities consequently issued notices to Ajit Singh calling for his reply in the matter. This notice has been filed alongwith the counter affidavit. A reply to this notice has also been given by the father of petitioner no.1 claiming the adoption to be valid. However, before any final order could be passed in respect of the inquiry initiated by the employer, he died in June, 2019. This notice has been filed alongwith the counter affidavit. A reply to this notice has also been given by the father of petitioner no.1 claiming the adoption to be valid. However, before any final order could be passed in respect of the inquiry initiated by the employer, he died in June, 2019. It is thereafter that an application is filed for grant of compassionate appointment which stands rejected by the orders impugned. The ground taken in the order to deny compassionate appointment is that the registration of adoption deed is forged. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that even if the adoption deed was not registered in the year 1975, yet it would not make any difference inasmuch as the requirement of registeration of adoption deed has been introduced only w.e.f. 1.1.1977. Attention of the Court has been invited to the amendment made in Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even otherwise it is admitted on record that the compassionate appointment offered to the father of petitioner no. 1 was never cancelled and, therefore, merely because some doubts were generated with regard to legality of such compassionate appointment or notices were issued would not be sufficient to deny consideration of claim for her appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that fake disclosure made by father of petitioner no. 1 that adoption deed was registered, once is established, the status of deceased person would not be that of an employee and rejection of claim of petitioner no. 1, therefore, is valid. 7. From the materials that have been placed on record, it is admitted that the compassionate appointment offered to the father of petitioner no. 1 in the year 2015 was never cancelled. The status of the employee concerned, therefore, continued to be that of an employee. Once that be so, the benefit of compassionate appointment under the ' U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974' cannot be denied only on the ground that certain doubts were generated with regard to legality of the appointment itself. Even otherwise, the requirement of registration of the adoption deed has been introduced only w.e.f. 1.1.1977, whereas the adoption was made prior thereto. Even otherwise, the requirement of registration of the adoption deed has been introduced only w.e.f. 1.1.1977, whereas the adoption was made prior thereto. In such circumstances, the grounds taken to deny consideration to petitioners claim for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be sustained. 8. Writ petition accordingly stands allowed. Impugned orders dated 13.11.2019 and 29.11.2019 stands quashed. The authority concerned shall reconsider the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, taking into consideration the observations made above, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The application filed by the petitioner no. 2 for release of withheld retiral dues, due to the deceased employee, shall also be considered within the same period.