RAVINDRA VERMA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admit. With consent of the parties, we have heard the appeal on its merit.

(2.) Claiming to be adopted son of late Sri Shiv Prasad, a Class - IV employee of the Government, who died in harness on 22nd March 2002, the Appellant submitted an application on 15th April 2002 for consideration of his case under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 for appointment on a Class - III post. This application was not taken to its logical conclusion. Appellant, accordingly, filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1297 of 2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing District Magistrate, Almora to decide the said application of the Appellant. The District Magistrate heard the Appellant. Appellant produced before the District Magistrate, Almora succession certificate granted by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Almora on 18th November 2003 in Succession Case No. 15 of 2002 declaring that the Appellant, being the adopted son, is entitled to succeed the deceased. Appellant also brought to the notice of the District Magistrate, Almora that on the basis of succession certificate, all terminal dues of the deceased have been released in favour of the Appellant. The District Magistrate, Almora, however, in the order passed by him on 22nd May 2006 rejecting the application of the Appellant for compassionate appointment, held out that the succession certificate is not binding, in as much as the deceased during his life time married and the wife left the deceased during his life time and the succession certificate was obtained without notice to her.

(3.) In a subsequent writ petition, which has been rejected by the judgment and order under appeal, Appellant contended that in view of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, there is a presumption under law as regards validity of adoption, and in as much as the adoption of the Appellant was recorded in a registered instrument of adoption, the District Magistrate, Almora erred in holding that the Appellant is not the adopted son of the deceased. It was contended that since the Rules do not make any distinction between son and adopted son, the Appellant was entitled to a compassionate appointment under the Rules.