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


Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep v. State Of U.P. Thru' Director Pension Nideshalaya & Ors. - WRIT - A No. 19907 of 2002 [2006] RD-AH 11810 (19 July 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).


Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 22.1.2002 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No.1.  Further issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.1 to release the family pension of the petitioner and to pay balance gratuity amount of 10% with 18% interest.

The facts arising out of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was born on 17.1.1993.  It has been stated that on 24.2.1993, the petitioner was adopted by one Roop Narain Gupta according to Hindu rites.  Sri Room Narain Gupta, adopted father of the petitioner retired from service on 31.10.1993 but the adoption deed was registered on 17.7.1997.  Sri Roop Narain Gupta died in the year 1998 then the petitioner through his guardian made an application for payment of family pension and other retiral benefits of Sri Roop Narain Gupta.  The said application was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that as the adopted father has already retired on 31.10.1993 and the adoption deed is of 1997, therefore, in view of the Government Orders dated 29.7.1998 and 23.12.1997, only the adopted son prior to the date of retirement is entitled for family pension, as the petitioner has been adopted subsequent to the retirement of Roop Narain Gupta i.e. 31.10.1993, therefore, he is not entitled for family pension.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record.

From the record it is clear that the petitioner was adopted subsequently after retirement of Sri Roop Narain Gupta and the adoption deed has been registered on 17.7.1997, admittedly after the retirement.  The adoption cannot be valid unless and until it is registered, therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner.  In my opinion, there is no infirmity in the order.

The counsel for the petitioner has informed that provident fund as well as 10% balance gratuity amount have not been paid as yet of Sri Roop Narain Gupta, who was the adopted father of the petitioner.  It is open to the petitioner to make an application for payment of provident fund as well as 10% balance gratuity amount annexing the copy of the adoption deed with a prove that he is the adopted son of Roop Narain Gupta.  On making the said application the respondents may consider the same and will pay the said amount, which is due to Sri Roop Narain Gupta.

The writ petition is hereby dismissed.


There shall be no order as to costs.




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.