SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Pramod Singh vs General Manager N C Rly on 28 November, 2019

Reserved

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD

BENCH, ALLAHABAD

(This the 28th Day of November 2019)

Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member (J)

Original Application No.330/00946/2015

(U/S 19, SectionAdministrative Tribunal Act, 1985)

Pramod Singh son of Late Iswari Trackman, R/o Village Badaura, Post
Rekhpanchampur, District Lalitpur (U.P)

……………. Applicant

By Advocate: Shri I.M. Kushwaha

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Head Office Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Assistant Divisional Railway Engineer (North Central Railway), Lalitpur.

….. …………. Respondents
By Advocate: Shri P. Mathur

ORDER

1. The present Original Application has been filed by applicant Pramod

Singh seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) To issue order or direction in the nature of certiorari to
quash or set aside the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by
D.R.M. (N.C.R.) Jhansi respondent No.2 (Annexure No. 16
of Compilation -1).

(ii) Issue order or direction to the respondent NO.2 to
consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate
2

appointment as made representation dated 27.10.2014
(Annexure 18) and 23.4.2015 (Annexure 19) and also
other claims.

(iii) To pass any such and further order as deem fit in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To issue award cost and compensation in favour of
applicants”.

2. Application has been filed for condoning the delay in filing the

present O.A. Learned counsel for the applicant adduced the

argument on this Misc. Application. Looking to the reasons

advanced by the applicant in his M.A., the circumstances of the

case and in the interest of justice, the delay in filing the O.A. is

condoned.

3. Case of applicant Pramod Singh, as per, the O.A. is that deceased

Ishwari was a bachelor and was working as a Trackman in the

respondents department at the time of his death on 26.3.2014. It is

the further case of applicant that deceased Ishwari adopted the

applicant in 1993 vide adoption deed (Annexure A-2) which was

registered on 18.10.2010 in the office of Registrar, Lalitpur, U.P. That

Ishwari also filed applications before respondent No.2 for nominating

the applicant as his legal heir in the official record of the department

on the basis of having taken applicant as his adopted son. That Civil

Suit 344 of 2010 filed in Civil Court (Senior Division), Lalitpur by the

applicant regarding the adoption deed was decreed by the said

Court vide judgment dated 2.2.2001 wherein the Civil Court had

decreed suit in favour of applicant that he is the adopted son of

deceased Ishwari, as per, vide adoption deed which was registered

on 18.10.2010. It is further case of applicant that in 2011, deceased

Ishwari also submitted a Form (Annexure A-7) before respondent No.
3

2 for nomination of applicant in P.F., G.I.S. and D.C.R.G. as his

nominee. It is also averred in the O.A. that applicant passed 8th class

in 1999 and the following documents i.e. photocopy of the

marksheet dated 20.05.1999 (Annexure A-9), photocopy of the

O.B.C. certificate and Residential Certificate (Annexure A-12) and

photocopy of Election Commission Card (Annexure A-13) mention

the name of as his father as Ishwari

4. It is further averred in the O.A. that Ishwari, father of applicant made

several representations including application dated 22.11.2013 to the

respondents which was rejected by respondent No.2 vide impugned

order dated 07.11.2013 (Annexure A-16) and is subject matter of

challenge in the present O.A. Applicant also submits that his

applications for appointment on compassionate ground is also

pending and the direction be also given in this regard.

5. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have submitted that the

impugned order rejecting the application of the applicant and his

deceased father have been rightly rejected by way of a reasoned

and speaking order. Applicant is not an indigent person and not

entitled to compassionate appointment. Hence, the O.A. deserves

dismissal.

6. I have heard and considered the argument of learned counsel for

the parties and gone through the pleading on record.

7. Before proceeding further, the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 is

reproduced below:-

4

“Ekkuuh; dsUnzh; iz’kklfud vf/kdj.k] bykgkckn }kjk
vkids }kjk nkf[ky fo”k;kafdr izdj.k esa ikfjr fu.kZ;
fnukad 05-09-2013 ds vuqikyu esa esjs }kjk vkids okn
i] okn i ds lkFk layXu] layXudks] lacaf/kr iziksa o
fof/kd izko/kkuks ,oa vkids izR;kosnu fnukad 15-01-2013
ds v/;uksijkUr fuEu Lihfadax vkns’k ikfjr fd, tkrs gSA
vkids }kjk izLrqr xksnukek ftlds vk/kkj ij Jh
izeksn flag iq Jh y{e.k flag dk uke vki viuh lsok
fooj.k esa nRrd iq ds :Ik esa ntZ djkuk pkgrs gS] ml
xksnukesa esa ;g n’kkZ;k x;k gS fd vkius Jh izeksn flag
ds lu~ 1993 esa tc mudh vk;q 8 o”kZ dh Fkh] xksn fy;k
FkkA ijUrq vkids }kjk mDr xksnukek fnukad 18-10-2010
dh jftLV~hd`r djk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj xksnukesa ds
jftLV~hdj.k dh frfFk 18-10-2010 dks vkids }kjk fy;s
x;s dfFkr nRrd iq Jh izeksn flag dh mez 15 o”kZ ls
vf/kd yxHkx 25 o”kZ FkhA tcfd fof/kd izko/kkuksa ds
vuqlkj oS/k xksnukesa ds fy;s gh xksn fy;s x;s
[email protected]+dh dh mez 15 o”kZ ls vf/kd ugh gksuk pkfg;s
,oa xksnukes dk jftLV~hd`r gksuk pkfg,A
vkids dfFkr nRrd iq Jh izeksn flag ds }kjk
mDr xksnukesa dks oS/k ?kksf”kr djus gsrq ekuuh; flfoy
tt] yfyriqj ds le{k okn la[;k [email protected]] izeksn
flag cuke ijlknh o vU; izLrqr fd;k Fkk rkfd dfFkr
nRrd iq Jh izeksn flag vkidh ikfjokfjd lEifRr ij
crkSj nRrd iq gd j[k ldsA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds }kjk
mDr okn vius fu.kZ; fnukad 02-02-11 ds }kjk
foi{khx.kksa ds }kjk nkf[ky jkthukes ¼lfU/k i 18 A½ ds
vk/kkj ij fuLrkfjr djrs gq, lekIr fd;k x;k gSA
tcfd okn i dh izkFkZuk ds vuqlkj xksnukes dks oS/k
?kksf”kr fd;k tkuk FkkA
blds vfrfjDr Hkkjr fuokZpu vk;ksx ds }kjk
dfFkr nRrd iq Jh izeksn flag ds i{k esa fnukad 09-08-
5

2006 dks igpku i tkjh fd;k x;k gS ftlesa Jh izeksn
flag ds uSlfxZd firk Jh y{eu flag dk uke vafdr gSA
tcfd xksnukesa ds rF;ksa ds vuqlkj vkids }kjk Jh izeksn
flag dks lu~ 1993 esa xksn fy;k tkuk dgk x;k gSA ,aslh
fLFkfr esa fuokZpu vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 09-08-2006 dks
tkjh igpku i esa firk ds uke ds LFkku ij vkidk
uke fy[kk tkuk pkfg,A
mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g fl} ugh gksrk gS fd
vkids }kjk izLrqr xksnukek oS/k gSA vr% vkids }kjk
izLrqr xksnukesa ,oa mijksDr folaxfr;ks ds vk/kkj ij Jh
izeksn flag dk uke vkids lsok fjdkMZ esa nRrd iq ds
:Ik esa ugh fy[kk tk ldrk gS vkSj uk gh mUgsa vkids
nRrd iq ds :Ik esa foHkkx esa dksbZ ykHk fey ldrk gSA
bl izdkj ekuuh; iz’kklfud vf/kdj.k bykgkckn
ds }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 05-09-2013 dks vuqikyu
gksrk gSA”

8. The first ground taken by the respondents for rejecting the

nomination of applicant Pramod Singh in the service record of

Ishwari is that when the adoption deed was got registered on

18.10.2010, the applicant was more than 15 years old and as per

Section 10 of Hindu Adoptions and SectionMaintenance Act 1956

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), no person is capable of being

taken an adoption unless he has not completed the age of 15 years.

9. Applicant in the O.A. taken the plea that he was adopted at the

age of 8 years in 1993, which plea has not been specifically denied

by the respondents in the counter affidavit. Respondents have

limited their challenge to the validity of the adoption of applicant by

Ishwari to the fact that the adoption deed was registered in 2010
6

when the applicant was more than 15 years old and thereby the

adoption was in violation of Section 10 (iv) of the Act.

10. Law is well settled that adoption can be made orally in accordance

with law. In the present case, the adoption deed was registered by

the Registrar, Lalitpur in the year 2010. There is no requirement in law

that a deed evidencing the factum of previous adoption cannot be

executed. In the present case, the factum of adoption of applicant

in 1993 is not denied by the respondents. Therefore it cannot be said

that a deed evidencing the adoption of 1993 when the adoptee

was 8 years old would be invalid on the ground that the adoptee

was more than 15 years of age on the date of registration of the

adoption deed. This contention of the respondents being devoid of

force of law is to be rejected.

11. Regarding the civil decree passed by the civil Court, the stand of

respondents while rejecting the said decree that the suit was filed for

declaration of the adoption deed which was decreed inter-se the

parties and the railway administration was not a party to the suit, as

such, no credence can be given to such decree. However, it is to be

noted that a decree is passed by a civil court after it is satisfied as to

the legality of the claim. The decree has not been challenged by the

respondents and taken in conjunction with other documents relied

upon by the applicant, tends to clinch the case in favour of the

applicant.

12. It has been argued by learned counsel for respondents that the

Election Commission identity card dated 09.08.2006 reflects the

name of father of applicant to be Lakshman Singh. On the other

hand, applicant placed on record Election Commission identity card
7

dated 03.08.2014, which shows the name of Ishwari as father of

applicant.

13. It has been argued by learned counsel for applicant that Election

Card dated 09.08.2006 wrongly showed the name of his father to be

Lakshman and the same was corrected in Election Card dated

03.08.2014. A sole document in shape of Election card produced by

the respondents in comparison to documents produced by

applicant which show his father’s name to be Ishwari gives credence

to stand of applicant that he is the adopted son of Ishwari and is to

be entered as nominee of Ishwari in the service record.

14. Plea was raised by respondents that Nomination Form filed in the

present O.A bears the thumb impression of Ishwari but the Form filed

in previous O.A. did not bear the thumb impression of Ishwari, which

raises doubt on the veracity of applicant’s bonafide. Respondents,

however, not pleaded that the ‘Form’ filed by Ishwari before them

did not bear the thumb impression of Ishwari and in any case the

question of thumb impression of Ishwari on photocopy form filed by

applicant is immaterial.

15. It be also noted that Section 16 read with Section 11 (4) of the Hindu

Adoption and SectionMaintenance Act 1956 clearly envisages a statutory

presumption that in the event of there being a registered document

pertaining to adoption, there would be a presumption that adoption

has been made in accordance with law. There is a presumption as to

registered documents relating to adoption under Section 16 of

Evidence Act, 1872 which reads as under –

8

“16 (1) Whenever any document registered under any law for
the time being in force is produced before any Court
purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the
person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the
Court shall presume that the adoption has been made in
compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is
disproved.

UTTAR PRADESH AMENDMENT

In its application to State of Uttar Pradesh S.16 is renumbered
as sub-section (1) thereof and after sub-section (1) as to
renumbered, sub-section (2), inserted namely:

“(2) In case of an adoption made on or after first day of
January, 1977 no Court in Uttar Pradesh shall accept any
evidence in proof of the giving and taking of the child in
adoption, except a document recording an adoption, made
and signed by the person giving and the person taking the
child in adoption, and registered under any law for the time
being in force:

Provided that secondary evidence of such document shall be
admissible in the circumstances and the manner laid down in
the SectionIndian Evidence Act, 1872.”

16. It is clear from the above facts that there is a presumption with

regard to a registered document relating to adoption and thus, the

adoption deed executed and registered on 18.10.2010 by deceased

Ishwari is prima facie, a valid document. Once the registered

adoption deed is valid and the same has not been cancelled in any

Competent Court, then the respondents have no jurisdiction to reject

the claim of applicant.

17. Applicant has also sought the relief of compassionate appointment

and averred that he had filed applications being Annexures A-18

and A-19 praying therein that he be appointed on compassionate
9

ground (referred paragraph 4.21 and 4.22 of the O.A.). The

respondents in their counter affidavit to paragraph 4.21 and 4.22

have not denied the receipt of the applications but taken the view

that the applicant is not living in penury but is able to sustain himself

financially. However, the facts remain that the application for

compassionate appointment have not been disposed of by the

respondents.

18. In view of the facts of the case as discussed above, the O.A. is

allowed and impugned order dated 07.11.2013 (Annexure – A16)

passed by respondent No. 2 is set aside. The case is remanded back

to respondent No. 2 to re-consider the claims of applicant for

entering the name of applicant Pramod Singh as nominee of

deceased Ishwari in his service record and appointment on

compassionate grounds treating him as adopted son of Ishwari. It be

noted that nothing has been observed on the merit of the case

insofar as compassionate appointment is concerned, which shall be

dealt with by the respondents as per scheme for compassionate

appointment by way of reasoned and speaking order within 4

months from the date of receipt of order with intimation to the

applicant. O.A. is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

(RAKESH SAGAR JAIN)
Member (J)

Manish/-

Leave a Reply

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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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