Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Kanti Devi & Another v. State Of U.P.& Others - WRIT - A No. 13968 of 2000 [2006] RD-AH 20427 (1 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.36

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13968 of 2000

Smt. Kanti Devi & another


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.

The petitioner no.2, Bal Krishan Srivastava, by means of the present writ petition is claiming compassionate appointment in place of Sri Prem Chand Srivastava, Ex-cashier, Government Press, U.P., Allahabad, who died-in-harness on 12.7.1994 being his adopted son.

The petitioner No.2 was born on 2.11.1975 and alleges that he was adopted by the deceased Prem Chand Srivastava vide adoption deed dated 6.12.1976.  He has been declared to be the adopted son of deceased Prem Chand Srivastava by the decree of the Civil Court i.e. Civil/Junior Division, Jaunpur dated 18.8.1998 passed in Original Suit No. 174 of 1998 Bal Krishna & Ors. Vs. Satish Chand & Ors.  The said decree is final and conclusive.

After the death of Prem Chand Srivastava on 12.7.1994, the petitioner No.2 applied for compassionate appointment, and when he was not given appointment,  he filed writ petition No. 15282 of 1997 (Smt. Kanti Devi & another Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) in the High Court but the same was dismissed on the ground of laches on 2.5.1997. The petitioner No.2 preferred a Special Appeal No. 296 of 1997, which was decided on 7.8.1997 with the direction to the petitioner No.2 to approach the Civil Court for getting his right as the adopted son declared.  The petitioner No.2  thereafter sought a declaration from the Civil Court, whereupon a decree dated 18.8.1998 has been passed in his favour.

Now by the impugned order dated 26.2.2000 the Joint Director, Government Press, Allahabad refused to consider the petitioner No.2  for compassionate appointment on the solitary  ground that the said benefit is not available to the adopted son. Therefore, the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 26.2.2000 and for a direction to give compassionate appointment, has been filed.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing counsel.

It is not disputed at the bar that the petitioner No.2  has been declared to be the adopted son of the deceased Prem Chand Srivastava  as per the decree of the Civil Court, which is final and conclusive. The said decree has been passed in view of the adoption deed dated 6.12.1976.

There is no controversy that petitioner No. 2, who is claiming himself to be the adopted son, was  dependent upon the deceased. In view of the decree of the Civil Court the petitioner No. 2  has also been declared to be the adopted son of the deceased. The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-harness) Rules, 1974 includes 'sons' of the deceased Government servant within the ambit of the "family" as defined under Section 2(c) of the Rules. The said rules nowhere explicitly excludes adopted sons from the definition of the family of the deceased. Therefore, by necessary implication the adopted son, who was dependent upon the deceased, is covered within the definition of the family of the deceased aforesaid and as such is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with rule 5 of the Rules.

Therefore, in view of the above legal position the respondent No.2 manifestly erred in law in refusing to consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of the deceased Prem Chand Srivastava. Accordingly, the impugned order 26.2.2000 is quashed and the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Dt. 1.12.2006



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.