JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Chhotey Singh, who was a Runner in the Irrigation Department, died in harness on December 30, 1999. Claiming himself to be the adopted son of Chhotey Singh, the writ petitioner-appellant Jai Prakash got an appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, . 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Dying in Harness Rules). The competent authority (respondent No. 2) cancelled the said appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant on March 31, 2003. Challenging the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 26974 of 2003 which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated July 14, 2003. Hence this appeal has been preferred against the orders dated March 31, 2003 of the competent authority as well as of the learned single Judge dated July 14, 2003.

(2.) The facts in brief giving rise to this appeal are that after the death of Chhotey Singh on December 30, 1999, his widow adopted the writ petitioner-appellant by a registered deed of adoption dated February 21, 2000. Thereafter, the Writ petitioner-appellant applied for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules and was given appointment by the respondents on July 22, 2000 under the said Rules. Subsequently realizing that the writ petitioner was not entitled to such appointment, the respondents issued a show cause notice and also required the writ petitioner-appellant to produce the original documents. After considering the entire case of the writ petitioner-appellant as well as the opinion of the District Government counsel, the respondent No. 2 Executive Engineer, Central Ganga Canal Construction Division 5, Bijnor cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant vide order dated March 31, 2003. The main ground for cancellation was that the writ petitioner-appellant was not adopted by the deceased employee Chhotey Singh during his life time and thus he could not be conferred the benefit under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, besides the fact that the writ petitioner failed to produce the original documents within the time granted.

(3.) The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of cancellation of the appointment after holding that the adoption itself was invalid as violative of Section 6 (iii) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and as such there was no question of his being given appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules.