AKHILESH KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: According to the petitioner, he was legally adopted as a son by Sri Sajjan Lal Tripathi on 18th September, 1981. Sri Sajjan Lal Tripathi was working as a Telegraph man in the office of the Superintendent Incharge, Central Telegraph Office, Kanpur- respondent No. 3. He was a bachelor and when he reached the age of 53 years he realised the necessity of a hand for assisting him in old age and adopted the petitioner as his son. The petitioner's natural father Sri Hirdai Narain and natural mother Smt. Premwati had also signed the adoption deed. The deed of adoption was duly registered. Sri Sajjan Lal Tripathi died on 20th June, 1984 while in service. At that time the petitioner was 11 years old. It is alleged by the petitioner that after his adoption the name of his father was always mentioned as Sri Sajjan Lal Tripathi as would be clear from the High School Certificate. After the death of Sri Sajjan Lal Tripathi he continued to live under the guardianship of Smt. Premwati who had given him shelter. She was appointed as his guardian by the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur vide order dated 23rd March, 1985. On 30th October, 1985 Smt. Premwati, the petitioner's guardian made a representation to the Superintendent Incharge, Central Telegraph Office, Kanpur- respondent No. 3 seeking employment of the petitioner on compassionate ground after attaining the age of 18 years. The respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 3rd February, 1986 had informed Smt. Premwati that under the rules no assurance of employment in future can be given to the petitioner who was minor at that time. Smt. Premwati vide application dated 20th May, 1986 requested respondent No. 2 to forward the application to the competent authority. The Additional Director, Telecommunication vide letter dated 10th July, 1986 asked the respondent No. 3 to send certain documents. Requisite documents were submitted vide application dated 13th April, 1988. Respondent No. 3 once again vide letter dated 27th October, 1988 informed that the case of the petitioner for giving employment on compassionate ground cannot be considered at this stage because he is a minor, i.e. below 18 years of age. However, his case would be considered after he becomes major. After the petitioner attained the age of 18 years and became major, Smt. Premwati submitted a representation on 13th January, 1991 seeking employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 26th March, 1992 intimated the petitioner that his case for giving employment on compassionate ground was not found proper and as such the application has been rejected. The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, U.P. Circle, Lucknow- respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 14th July, 1992 also reiterated the same view. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 1587 of 1992 challenging the order dated 26th March, 1992 passed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 14th July, 1992 passed by respondent No. 2. After exchange of pleadings the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 2nd June, 1995 have rejected the petitioner's application. The Tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that except the averments made in the application there is no other evidence (documents) to support the claim of the petitioner that he was adopted by late Sajjan Lal Tripathi as son on 18th September, 1981 and the Succession Certificate, which forms the basis for releasing the dues of late Sajjan Lal Tripathi in favour of Smt, Premwati, legal guardian of the petitioner cannot be treated a conclusive evidence of adoption of the petitioner by late Sajjan Lal Tripathi. There is no registered adoption deed on record and the petitioner has failed to prove the adoption. So far as the entries made in the High School Certificate showing Sri Sajjan Lal Tripathi as father of the petitioner is concerned, the Tribunal has stated that the entries in the High School Certificate are based on information given by the petitioner and hence cannot take place of evidence to prove adoption and even it is held that the he is adopted son of late Sajjan Lal Tripathi, this by itself does not confer a right on the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has further held that late Sajjan Lal Tripathi died leaving behalf the petitioner as his dependant. Admittedly, the entire dues i.e. provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment etc. have been paid to the petitioner through his legal guardian. He is also drawing family pension which is sufficient to sustain the petitioner and in that view of the matter he cannot be said to be in penurious conditions which may entitle him to compassionate employment. Thereafter the petitioner filed an application seeking review of the order which has also been rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 5th December, 1995. The two orders passed by the Tribunal are under challenge in the present petition.

(3.) We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri S.C. Misra, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.