SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rani Devi vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

Reserved

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

This the 3rd day of June, 2021.

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J)

Rani Devi d/o late Narayan, residing at Village Paricha near Police
Chauki, behind Punjab National Bank, District- Jhansi (U.P.).

Applicant
By Advocate: Sri S.K. Mishra

Versus

1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, Zonal Head Quarters , Subedarganj, Allahabad, U.P.
2. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, North Central
Railway, Jhansi (U.P.)
Respondents

By Advocate: Sri N.C. Srivastava

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J)

By means of the present O.A., the applicant has challenged

the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 27.4.2011

(Annexure No. A-1 to the O.A.), whereby the claim of the applicant

Rani Devi for compassionate appointment, has been rejected by

the respondents. The applicant has sought the relief to quash the

aforesaid impugned order and to direct the respondents to offer

compassionate appointment to her in Railways.

3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length

and have perused the record.

4. The relevant facts necessary for a proper adjudication of the

controversy involved in the instant O.A., are that one class IV

employee, Late Sri Narayan, who was employed in the North

Central Railway, Jhansi Division, as a Gateman, died in harness on

28.1.1998, leaving behind his widow named Smt. Gulab Rani.

5. Smt. Gulab Rani, widow of late Narayan, filed the instant

O.A., seeking compassionate appointment as applicant No. 1.

Page 1 of 10

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

However, during pendency of the O.A., Gulab Rani expired. After

her death, the present applicant Rani Devi was substituted as

applicant No. 1 in this O.A.

6. As per the facts mentioned in the O.A., late Sri Narayan had

left behind him, his widow Smt. Gulab Rani (applicant No.1) and

their adopted daughter, Rani (applicant No. 2). Rani, was taken in

adoption by late Sri Narayan and his wife Gulab Rani on 6th

January, 1994, from her biological parents Sri Ramdas and Prem

Kunwar. An adoption deed was prepared on the same date in the

presence of witnesses and necessary formalities were completed.

Rani Devi was five years old at the time of her adoption. (A copy of

the adoption deed has been annexed as Annexure No. A-2 to the

O.A.). After the death of Sri Narayan, his widow Smt. Gulab Rani

had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in Railway

on 27.5.98, but her claim was rejected. Thereafter, vide application

dated 2nd June, 2006 (Annexure No. A-7 to the O.A.), she

requested that her adopted daughter Rani be given appointment in

Railway on compassionate ground. The request made by Gulab

Rani for compassionate appointment of her adopted daughter, Rani

was also rejected by the respondent department vide order dated

16.3.2007 (Annexure No. A-8 to the O.A.), on the ground that

adoption was not valid because Rani was taken in adoption after

the death of late Sri Narayan, and the adoption deed being not

registered. Being aggrieved, the applicant, Gulab Rani made a

representation on 11.7.2007, requesting the respondents to

reconsider their decision, but when nothing was done, she filed

O.A. No. 147/2008 before this Tribunal, which was decided vide

order dated 7.1.2011, whereby the respondent/ competent authority

was directed to pass a fresh order within a period of 3 months on

the claim/representation of the applicant.

Page 2 of 10

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

7. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, passed

in earlier O.A. filed by Gulab Rani, the respondents passed the

impugned order dated 27.4.2011, which is under challenge in the

instant O.A.

8. The respondents have filed Counter reply, and have

opposed the claim of the applicant by contending that late Sri

Narayan, who was working as a Gateman and who died on

28.1.1998, had left behind only his widow Smt. Gulab Rani. After

the death of her husband, his widow Smt. Gulab Rani submitted the

claim for payment of settlement dues in her favour in prescribed

form, in which she declared herself as the sole legal heir of late Sri

Narayan. No adopted daughter’s presence was declared by Smt.

Gulab Rani, as another dependent of her deceased husband in the

settlement form. Had Km. Rani (the applicant) been adopted by the

deceased employee during his life time, Smt. Gulab Rani would

have declared Km. Rani as their adopted daughter in the settlement

form. But as she has not done so, the applicant cannot be treated

as adopted daughter of deceased Sri Narayan.

9. It is further contended that Smt. Gulab Rani had applied for

compassionate appointment for herself vide application dated

27.5.1998, stating clearly that she may be given appointment in

place of her husband as there is no one in the family except her.

On receipt of application of Smt. Gulab Rani, a Welfare Inspector

was deputed for investigation in the matter, who submitted his

report on 5.4.1999, to the effect that the widow is alone and she

has no children. The photo copy of the report of Welfare Inspector

has been filed as Annexure No. CA-2 and CA-3 to the Counter

Reply. It is further contended that the respondent/ competent

authority, after going through the report of the Welfare Inspector,

did not find the case of Gulab Rani fit for considering

compassionate appointment in view of the fact that Rs. 1,27,929/-

Page 3 of 10

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

had already been paid to Gulab Rani as settlement dues, she was

also getting Rs.1685/- per month as family pension and there was

no other family liability on her. Therefore, the claim for

compassionate appointment of Galab Rani was rejected.

10. Smt. Gulab Rani once again applied for compassionate

appointment on 6.8.2005. Her case was considered and she was

called for screening on 30.1.2006, vide letter dated 9.1.2006.

However, she remained absent. She was once again called for

screening on 27.2.2006, But she remained absent. Ultimately she

appeared on 30.3.2006 for screening and she was sent for medical

examination, in which she was declared medically unfit for all

categories. A copy of medical certificate dated 11.5.2006 has been

filed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter reply.

11. Learned counsel for respondents has vehemently contended

that it was only when Smt. Gulab Rani was declared medically unfit

in all categories, she requested for compassionate appointment to

Km. Rani, (the present applicant) claiming her as their adopted

daughter, by annexing an adoption deed dated 6.1.1994 executed

on a five rupee stamp paper. It is contended that the aforesaid

adoption deed being an unregistered document and being

registered at a later date on 12.7.2006 i.e. after the death of the

employee, is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon.

It is further contended that as per the mandatory provision

contained in Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act

and Section 17(3) of Registration Act, the Registration of adoption

deed is a must to make it a valid adoption. Therefore, the

unregistered adoption deed of Km. Rani being not a valid adoption

deed, the applicant Km. Rani was rightly denied compassionate

appointment by the respondents and there is no need to interfere in

the impugned order.

Page 4 of 10

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

12. Learned counsel for respondents has drawn my attention to

the High School certificate of Km.Rani to show that Km. Rani has

passed High School in the year 2006. In this certificate, the name of

her father and mother is recorded as Sri Ramdas and Smt.

Premkunwar, who are her biological/natural parents. My attention

has also been drawn to the caste certificate issued in favour of Km.

Rani on 1.3.2011, in which her father’s and mother’s name have

been mentioned as Sri Ramdas and Smt. Premkunwar. The

contention of the learned counsel for respondents is that both these

documents are most cogent and trustworthy evidence of parentage

of a person, which clearly show that Rani Devi was never adopted

by the deceased employee in his life time. The photo copies of High

School certificate 2006 and caste certificate of 2011 of Km. Rani

Devi have been collectively annexed as Annexure No. CA-6 to the

counter reply.

13. It is also contended that the deceased Sri Narayan had

never declared Km. Rani as his adopted daughter in his life time, in

his service records. Moreover, he has never taken privilege pass

and P.T.O. in favour of Rani Devi.. Had Km. Rani, been the

adopted daughter of deceased employee, he would have certainly

availed the privilege pass and P.T.O. for her.

14. Learned counsel for respondents has further contended that

as per rules, the compassionate appointment is permissible to the

dependent wards of a deceased employee, whereas all the facts

mentioned above fully establish that Km. Rani was never a

dependent of the deceased employee late Sri Narayan.

15. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the claim

of Rani Devi for appointment on compassionate ground which was

rightly rejected by the respondent by a well reasoned and speaking

order dated 27.4.2011, does not requires any interference by this

Tribunal .

Page 5 of 10

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

16. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Reply, in which she has

reiterated the facts as mentioned in the O.A. However, there is no

rebuttal of the High School certificate, caste certificate and other

documents filed by the respondents showing the names of her

biological parents. In reply to all the contentions raised by the

respondents, the applicant has only stated in his Rejoinder reply

that the impugned order is against the letter and spirit of judgment

passed by this Tribunal in earlier O.A. 147/2008.

17. I have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions

advanced by ld. Counsel for the parties. Having heard learned

counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I do not find

any merit or substance in the present O.A. and it is liable to be

dismissed. The reasons are as follows:-

(a). The applicant has admitted the fact that although she was

taken in adoption by the deceased employee Sri Narayan on

6.1.1994, during his life time and a deed of adoption was executed

on the same day, however, it got registered at a later date i.e. on

12.7.2006. The copy of the adoption deed dated 6.1.1994 is

annexed as Annexure No.A-2 to the O.A. which clearly shows that

it is an unregistered document executed on a Rs. 5 stamp paper,

which does not fulfill the mandatory requirement for a valid

adoption.

(b). Section 17 (3) of the Registration Act requires that a deed of

adoption be compulsorily registered. Section 16(2) of Hindu

Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966 also mandates that all

adoptions are to be registered. Section 16(2) of Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act, 1966 is reproduced below for a ready reference:-

“(2) In case of an adoption made on or after the 1st 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

Page 6 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012

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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”.

It is undisputed fact that adoption deed was registered in the

year 2006 i.e. after the death of employee, Even assuming for the

sake of arguments that any adoption deed was executed on 6.1.94,

as claimed by the applicant, this Tribunal cannot hold it as a valid

adoption in view of the bar of 8.16 (2) of Hindu Adoption and

Maintenance Act, 1966.

(c ) Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sumit Kumar

Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others Writ A No. 11931 of 2016 decided

on 15.3.2016 under the similar circumstances, has held as under:-

“So long as the deceased employee was alive, no valid

adoption deed came into existence, on the basis of

which, petitioner could claim any right. Even otherwise,

a period of nearly 08 years have lapsed since the death

of deceased, and in view of the law settled, a claim for

grant of compassionate appointment after such

inordinate delay is not liable to be entertained. The Writ

Petition, consequently, lacks merit and is dismissed.”

(d). In another case of Raj Kumar Saxena Vs. Basic Shiksha

Parishad , U.P. and others Writ A – No. 66944 of 2006 decided

on 27.3.2019, the petitioner was adopted by unregistered adoption

deed dated 17.11.1980. He was given compassionate appointment

on 31.3.1995 on the basis of unregistered adoption deed and in

pursuance, the petitioner functioned as Assistant Teacher for over

a decade. However, a complaint was filed in the office of Basic

Shiksha Adhikari, alleging that petitioner was not a legally adopted

Page 7 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012

son. Therefore, a show cause notice, supported by a fact finding

enquiry report was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner

submitted his explanation. The respondents, being not satisfied

with the explanation furnished by the petitioner, terminated his

services by the impugned order, on the ground that adoption deed

being an unregistered document, could not have been acted upon.

The order of termination was challenged before the Hon’ble High

Court on the ground that the i) services of the petitioner could not

have been terminated after rendering prolonged service of 14

years; ii) there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the

petitioner; iii) adoption deed is a valid and legal deed. However,

Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition, placing reliance of

several judgments and legal provisions, by observing as under:-

“22. On plain reading of Section 16(2)/and 49(c) of Act,

1956and Act, 1908, respectively, incorporated by State

amendment, it clearly mandates that any document

creating any right or relationship shall not be received in

evidence creating such right or relationship unless it

has been registered. Accordingly, the adoption deed is

unreceivable in evidence recording an adoption, further,

the adoption in view of Section 11(i) of Act, 1956 is

invalid. Petitioner, admittedly, being the son’s son of the

adoptive mother living at the time of adoption could not

have been taken in adoption.”

(e). It is also noteworthy that in the aforesaid case too, the name

of biological parent was recorded in the High School and

Intermediate certificate, despite the fact that the petitioner was

adopted long before appearing in High School and Intermediate

examination. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in para 34,35 and 36 of

the aforesaid judgment held as under:-

“34. Section 12 of Act, 1956 deals with the effects of
adoption. The adopted child shall be deemed to be the

Page 8 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012

child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all
purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and
from such date all the ties of the child in 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. In other words, on adoption, adoptee
gets transplanted in adopting family with the same
rights as that of natural born son. (Refer: Basavarajappa
vs. Gurubasamma)

35. On specific query, as to how, the names of
biological parents came to be recorded in the high
school and intermediate certificates despite the
petitioner having been adopted at the age of 7 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the
decision rendered by the Single Judge of this Court in
Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, to contend
that the Board of High School and Intermediate
Examination records the names of the biological parents
instead of the adoptive parent in the high school/and
intermediate certificates, therefore, the names of the
biological parents and not the adoptive mother came to
be recorded in the certificates. The facts obtaining in
Ravindra Kumar (supra) is distinguishable. The deed of
adoption was a registered deed and a valid deed; the
petitioner, therein, had approached the Board for
correction of the certificate which was declined by the
Board in absence of rules permitting such correction.
This is not the case in the instant case. The deed of
adoption is invalid and unenforceable in law.

36. The plea on the face of it is untenable for the
reason that the petitioner as per his own case was
adopted at the age of 7 years and in view of the
Section
12 of the Act, 1956, the adopted child for all purposes
shall be deemed to be the child of his adoptive parent.
However, the name of the adoptive mother does not find
recorded in either of the certificates (class 10 and 12).
Nor does such a reference finds in the Parivar Register
prepared under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of
Family Register) Rule, 1970. It therefore, follows that
until taking the examination of class 12, the alleged
adoption deed had not seen the light of day. It was an
afterthought to get an unregistered adoption deed
executed for the purposes of obtaining compassionate
appointment. The State Amendments came to be
inserted in Act, 1956 and Act, 1908 to avoid such fraud
and misrepresentation on the basis of such document.”

(f). The well settled legal position with regard to compassionate

appointment is that a compassionate appointment is not a

hereditary right but rather it is to be granted on a consideration of

the financial distress and hardship being faced by the family of the

deceased employee and in order to grant succor and immediate

relief to the family of the deceased employee.

Page 9 of 10

O.A. No.330/00225/2012

18. The deceased late Sri Narayan died in the year 1998 and if

the family has been able to survive for 23 years after the death of

the bread winner of the family, the sense of immediacy to tide over

the financial crises no longer remain.

19. In view of all the facts and circumstances and in wake of law

laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court, I find

no merit in the O.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed.

20. No order as to costs.

(Justice Vijay Lakshmi)
Member (J)

HLS/-

Page 10 of 10

Leave a Reply

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

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