P.SAMUEL JOSEPH Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent and perused the record.

(2.) Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he has been taken in adoption by his maternal Aunt under Registered Deed of Adoption dtd. 6/10/1988, after the death of her husband; that ever since, the date of adoption, he was taken care and was under the custody of his adopted mother; that his adopted mother was working as Office Assistant in the Office of the Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai, till she had deceased, while in service on 20/4/2015; that he had performed final rites of his adopted mother as her son; that his adopted mother had nominated him for receiving TNCPSP fund cum Gratuity scheme and to receive terminal benefits from the Government; and that despite her adopted mother mentioning the petitioner's name alone as son in the family detail particulars submitted under Rule 54(12) in Form 3 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the respondents are not disbursing death benefits due to his adopted mother, for her service as Office Assistant at the Office of Administrative Officer, Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai, which action it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and capricious.

(3.) Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 relying on the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent contended that the deceased employee (i.e.,) Tmt.Mary Clara during her service neither intimated the second respondent about she adopting her sister's son nor she submitted any legal documents for recording adoption of the petitioner in the 2nd respondent office records; that the deceased Government Employee was in service, when the petitioner is alleged to have been taken in adoption and thus, it is mandatory for any Government Servant to inform the adoption and to get the same entered in the service register/records, which was not done by the deceased Government Servant; and that as the adoption of the petitioner is not brought to the knowledge of the respondents, and is not borne out from the records of the deceased employee, nor the petitioner submitted legal heir certificate, his claim cannot be considered.