BHUVAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for grant of compassionate appointment and to set aside the order dtd. 25/11/2017 (Annexure-P/1) whereby claim of the petitioner that he is the adopted son of deceased Lila Ram Tandon, Head Constable, who died in harness on 31/7/2014, was declined.

(2.) Facts of the case are that late Lila Ram Tandon was working as Head Constable in the Department of Home, who died in harness on 31/7/2014. The petitioner claiming himself to be adopted son of the deceased moved an application for compassionate appointment on 29/10/2014 along with certificate of the Gram Panchayat and other documents in support of his claim. However, the said application was rejected by the respondents on 30/10/2014 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish the relationship between him and the deceased employee as father and adopted son, and further that the petitioner has earlier applied for compassionate appointment being brother-in-law of the deceased. When the said claim was not accepted, he has taken another ground claiming himself to be adopted son. Against the said rejection, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.6578/2014 , which was disposed of vide order dtd. 13/1/2016 with a direction that the competent authority ought to have granted proper and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to establish the relationship with the deceased employee and the respondent authorities should have held enquiry in that regard. Thereafter in pursuance of the said direction, a Committee has been constituted on 3/3/2016 (Annexure-P/3).

(3.) Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.80-A/2016 along with the wife of the deceased employee namely, Smt. Radha Bai by impleading his natural father Suraj Lal Madhukar and mother Smt. Rambha Devi and the State before 10th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur and the said civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dtd. 20/6/2016 (Annexure-P/5) by observing that though the petitioner has claimed that he was adopted by the deceased employee in the year 1997 at the age of 5-6 years, but in his school records, the names of his natural father and mother were continued in the documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/5) and further that no information was given by the deceased employee to the respondent department about such adoption, because of which it was presumed that the suit was collusive in nature. The said judgment was challenged by way of an appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Sec. 96 of the CPC (Annexure-P/7) before the 6th Additional District Judge vide MJC No.149/2017.