IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 8208 of 2015

Shatrudhan Yadav S/o late Indar Chowdhary, village- Shivrajpur , P.S.- Bhore,
District- Gopalganj.

…. …. Petitioner/s
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Collector, Gopalganj.

2. The Collector , District- Gopalganj, Gopalganj,

3. The Deputy Collector, District General Section, Gopalganj Collectorate,
Gopalganj.

4. The Circle Officer, Bhore, District- Gopalganj.

…. …. Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : M/s Bindhyachal Singh Avinash Kr, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr Prabhakar Jha, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 28-03-2018

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

respondent-State.

2 The short issue, which arises for consideration in the

instant case, is whether the claim for compassionate appointment can

be rejected on the ground that the claim of the adopted son is not

supported by any evidence showing adoption by the foster parents in

accordance with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

3 The reasons assigned for rejecting the claim of the

petitioner are vague inasmuch as what is the requirement is not born

from the impugned order dated 14.10.2011. It is clear from the

records that the petitioner has produced registered deed of his
Patna High Court CWJC No.8208 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018

2/4

adoption by the foster parents including late Indar Chowdhary. The

foster father of the petitioner died, while in harness, working as

Dafadar. The petitioner has staked his claim for appointment as

Chaukidar on compassionate grounds in view of the demise of late

Indar Chowdhary, the foster father of the petitioner. By assigning

such vague reasons, his claim has been rejected. It appears that the

registered deed of adoption has not been considered by the authorities.

4 Mr Bindhyachal Singh appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in

the case of Union of India Others -Versus- Most Shitali Devi

Another, 2002 (4) PLJR 62. He submits that the law with regard to

consideration of claim for compassionate appointment by adopted

heirs has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the

said judgment, the relevant paragraph is being reproduced

hereinbelow:

“… … …

4. The Court is of the view that
this matter should not be made an issue and
the logic of a regulation is not going to solve
any human problem. If the employees, who
are being considered, are class IV employees
then regard being had to the realities it is
unlikely that in that strata of the society
issueless couples go through the formality of
the law and make an adoption and have it duly
registered. This is a common law concept. An
oriental society such as ours containing an
amalgam of many cultures does by practice
Patna High Court CWJC No.8208 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018

3/4

and custom resort to resolving problems
within the family and society, and adoption is
one such modality. Indian marriages in
generality do not see a registration but are
conducted on custom. The case before the
railway was one such circumstance. If the
railway takes the posture that the strictness of
the regulation must apply, then it is clear that
no Class IV employees’ wards may get an
employment if adopted. Nobody apprehends
death of an earning member so as to keep
papers as a record, to be made available for
such an eventuality. The eventuality is to seek
employment on the rule of harness. In India
amongst economically weaker sections of the
society, and at times the middle class not
excluded, the generality is that children are
adopted and are brought up by foster parents
without the rigours of a registered document.
This is one such matter where a hard or fast
rule or a rigid interpretation of the regulation
may, perhaps provide a soul-less escape for
the railway administration but it will defeat
the rule of harness and not solve a problem of
life for a class for whom the rule was meant.
Fraud, mischief, misrepresentation may by all
means be inquired, so as not to render the
Rule of Harness in service nugatory. But if the
relationship of adoption and foster parents be
bona fide and not manufactured to defeat a
regulation, such a relationship, exceptions
apart as pointed out, should be accepted.

… … …”

5 In view of the aforesaid settled principles of law, the

issue requires consideration by the authorities in light of the law

declared by the Division Bench of this Court. It would be open to the

petitioner to place before the authorities other contemporaneous
Patna High Court CWJC No.8208 of 2015 dt.28-03-2018

4/4

documents for effective consideration of his case.

6 Let the Compassionate Appointment Committee

consider the petitioner’s claim in light of the law noticed above and

on the basis of the documents that the petitioner may produce in

accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a period

of three months from the date of submission of the documents by the

petitioner which shall be submitted not later than four weeks from

today. The Committee will take a decision without having regard to

the earlier rejection of the petitioner’s claim by the impugned order

dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure 4).

7 The writ petition is disposed of.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J)

M.E.H./-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 29.03.2018
Transmission NA
Date