NORTHERN COALFIELDS LTD Vs. RAJESH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 9.1.2014, passed by the writ Court in W.P. No. 11705/2011(S), this appeal has been filed.

(2.) RECORDS indicate that one Shri Mohan Lal Sharma was working in the appellants' department. While he was so working, Shri Mohan Lal Sharma submitted an application on 25.1.2003 alongwith an adoption deed, seeking nomination of respondent Rajesh Sharma as his nominee in the service book. On 3.2.2003, the appellants/department rejected the same on the ground that the adoption deed was not in accordance to the Hindu Succession Act, and a person beyond the age of 18 years could not be adopted and, therefore, rejected his claim. Thereafter, Shri Mohan Lal Sharma submitted an application and sought for incorporating the name of Rajesh Sharma as his nominee, based on the fact that he was his nephew. This application Annexure P/3 is dated 23.12.2002. However, after death of Shri Mohan Lal Sharma on 15.9.2004, Rajesh Sharma sought compassionate appointment on the ground that he was the adopted son of Late Mohan Lal Sharma and in support of the same placed reliance on a judgment and decree, whereby a declaration was given that he is the adopted son of Late Mohan Lal Sharma. It is seen that against the judgment and decree declaring Rajesh Sharma to be the adopted son of Late Mohan Lal Sharma an appeal is pending at the instance of the appellants in the Court of District Judge, Singrauli. In the meanwhile, based on the adoption deed, respondent Rajesh Sharma filed the writ petition and sought appointment. The learned writ Court directed for compassionate appointment to be granted to Rajesh Sharma, treating him to be the adopted son of Late Mohan Lal Sharma. The said appointment was directed to be made subject to outcome of the appeal.

(3.) SHRI Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the appellants, argues that the appeal is pending since 2011 and he produces the order -sheets of the appeal to say that the respondent/petitioner is not appearing in the appeal and delaying the matter, and at the same time is claiming compassionate appointment on the basis of the adoption deed, which is sub judice before the District Court. It is further argued by Shri Vivek Rusia that when the adoption deed was subject matter of appeal and was sub judice, the learned Writ Court should not have granted any direction for appointment and in doing so, an error has been committed, as the adoption deed itself is in dispute and until and unless the matter is not finalized by the appellate authority, it is argued that the benefit granted is unsustainable.