SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prakash Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 3 July, 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12934 of 2019

Prakash Kumar Son of Late Ishwar Dayal Singh Resident of At Amar
Chhataui, Motihari, P.S. Muffasil, District- East Champaran.

… … Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District- Compassionate
Appointment Committee, East Champaran at Motihari.

… … Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan (SC 25)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-07-2019
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated

04.04.2013 passed by the respondent no. 2 contained in

Memo No. 114 whereby the claim of the petitioner for

being appointed on compassionate ground has been

rejected.

3. It appears that the adoptive father of the

petitioner died on 18.11.2006 while serving as Peon in the

District Legal Cell, Motihari. Within five years of the death

of the adoptive father, the petitioner made an application

for being considered for compassionate appointment. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.12934 of 2019 dt.03-07-2019
2/6

aforesaid application was filed after the petitioner attained

majority on 29.07.2011.

4. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner

that his date of birth is 10.09.1991 and he was adopted

by the deceased employee and his wife viz. Girija Devi on

04.05.2003. However there is no document of such

adoption nor the petitioner has been able to bring on

record any evidence in support of the petitioner having

been adopted in the year 2003, when he was of the age

when any child could have been adopted under the Hindu

Adoption and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956. It has been urged by

the petitioner that in the year 2003, the petitioner was 12

years and 4 months of age. The registered deed of

adoption is dated 07.05.2009.

5. These aspects were gone into by the District

Compassionate Committee and it was found that at the

time of the deed of adoption being registered, the

petitioner was 18 years of age and therefore was not being

capable of adopted. The establishment committee also
Patna High Court CWJC No.12934 of 2019 dt.03-07-2019
3/6

came to the conclusion that the factum of the petitioner

having been adopted in the year 2003 cannot be accepted

for the reason that there is no evidence with respect to

such adoption. Therefore, the only date which could be

considered by the committee was the date of registration

of such deed.

6. Looking into these aspects of the matter, the

establishment committee came to the conclusion that the

claim of the petitioner has been put up only for the

purposes of seeking appointment on compassionate

ground.

7. Hence the claim was rejected by the order

impugned.

8. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and

SectionMaintenance Act, 1956 deals with the presumption as to

registered documents relating to adoption. Whenever any

document registered under any law for the time being in

force is produced before any court as a record of adoption

made and is signed by the person giving and the person
Patna High Court CWJC No.12934 of 2019 dt.03-07-2019
4/6

taking the child in adoption, it shall be presumed by the

court that the adoption has been made in compliance with

the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved. A

person could be adopted if he is given in adoption by a

person who is capable of giving his child in adoption and

the person adopting also has the capability to adopt.

9. Section 11 deals with conditions which would

be essential for a valid adoption. The proviso to Section 11

of the Act further describes that performance of any

religious ceremony would not be essential for the validity

of an adoption. However Section 12 of the Act which deals

with effects of adoption, enunciates that an adopted child

shall be deemed to be the child of his or her father or

mother for all purposes with effect from the date of

adoption and from such date all the ties of the child with

the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be

severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in

the adoptive family.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12934 of 2019 dt.03-07-2019
5/6

10. From a reading of the aforesaid Sections of

the Hindu Adoption and SectionMaintenance Act, 1956, there does

not appear to be any mandate with respect to the

reckonable date of adoption. A registered adoption deed

only raises a presumption in favour of the contention that

a particular person has been adopted. From what date the

adoption would be reckonable is not clear under the Act.

11. In the case in hand, the registered adoption

deed does not refer to any written arrangement or

agreement between the parties but statement of the

mother of the adoptive child/the petitioner that it was the

desire of her late husband/deceased employee to adopt the

petitioner and the petitioner was adopted in the year 2003

when he was slightly more than 12 years of age. The

registered deed of adoption further discloses that the

father of the adoptive child/the petitioner, unfortunately

died and therefore the deed could not be registered. The

registered deed does not contain the signature of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.12934 of 2019 dt.03-07-2019
6/6

parents of the petitioner who had given him in adoption to

the deceased employee and his wife.

12. Under these circumstances, the registered

deed of adoption cannot be accepted to be an

unimpeachable document which could give rise to the

entitlement of the petitioner for being appointed on

compassionate ground.

13. The aforesaid exercise was done by this Court

in order to find out whether with such registered deed of

adoption, was it justified for the authorities to reject the

claim of the petitioner on the adoption being under doubt.

14. There is thus no reason why the order of the

District Compassionate Appointment Establishment

Committee be interfered with.

15. There is no merit in this petition and the

same is dismissed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
krishna/-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 06.07.2019
Transmission Date

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation