High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Union Of India And Others v. Smt. Parwati Devi And Others - WRIT - A No. 22712 of 2007  RD-AH 9106 (11 May 2007)
Court No. 10
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 22712 OF 2007.
Union of India and others ...............Petitioner.
Smt. Parwati Devi and others ...............Respondents.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
This writ petition is directed against the order dated 9th March, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application No. 963 of 2003 of respondent no. 1 and 2 has been allowed directing petitioners to consider them for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the respondent no. 2 Durga Prasad, was not a natural son of the deceased employee Ram Vishal and therefore, was not entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.
It appears that late Ram Vishal was a permanent employee who died on 23rd November, 2001 while working as Track Man. The respondent no. 2 applied for compassionate appointment along with an affidavit of respondent no. 1 wherein she stated that the respondent no. 2, Durga Prasad, is the adopted son of late Ram Vishal and may be given compassionate appointment as his legal heir. The application of the respondent no. 2 was rejected on the ground that adoption deed was not registered as is required under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 as amended in the State of U.P. vide U.P. Act No. 57 of 1976 and therefore, he cannot be treated to be duly adopted son of the deceased employee. Aggrieved, he preferred the aforesaid Original Application which has been allowed by the Tribunal by order impugned in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in law a registered deed was necessary to confer benefit of adoption upon respondent no. 2 and in the absence thereof he could not have been treated to be duly adopted son of the deceased. He further contended that respondent no. 2 passed High School and Intermediate Examinations in the year 1991 and 1993 respectively wherein the name of his father is shown as Sri Sheetla Prasad and not Sri Ram Vishal.
We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records.
In our view it is not a fit case warranting any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. From the records it appears that the respondent no. 2 was adopted by respondent no. 1 and late Ram Vishal in the year, 1982. During the period he was in service, respondent no. 2 lived with him and for traveling of respondent no. 2, the railway authorities issued second class free pass admissible to the family members of the railway employees. This fact was stated in para 4.11 of the Original Application and was not disputed by the petitioners in para 14 of their reply. Further in order to give benefit of compassionate appointment to the adopted son and daughter, the Railway Board itself has issued a circular dated 20th May, 1988 which reads as under:
(1) Railway Board's letter No. E (NG) /II/86/RC-1/1 Policy dated 20.5.1988 provides as under:-
"An adopted son/adopted daughter will also be eligible to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds (in circumstances in which such compassionate appointment is permissible) in case, all the following conditions are satisfied."
(i) There is satisfactory proof of adoptions valid legality;
(ii) The adoption is legally recognized under the personal law governing the railway servant;
(iii) The legal adoption process has been completed and has become valid before the date of death/ medical decategorization /medical incapacitation (as the case may be) of the ex. Employee.
The Railway Board circular does not require the adoption deed to be registered. The circular is statutory in nature in view of the power conferred upon it under the rules framed by the President under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and therefore, binding upon the authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not show that the said circular is not attracted in the case in hand and has been modified or changed at any point of time. Moreover, the Tribunal referring to the said circular and the material available on record has held that the application of respondent no. 2 for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected merely on the ground that he did not produce registered adoption deed. We do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal.
In view of the above discussion, we find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.