P.S.E.B. Vs. JAGAN NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and decree dtd. 1/3/2005 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna, whereby the civil suit filed by respondent, was decreed in his favour and judgment and decree dtd. 23/2/2006 whereby the appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree dtd. 1/3/2005 was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that Jokhu Ram was employee of appellants and served as a Watch Man for 30 years. Respondent-Jagan Nath was only legal heir being adopted son of Jokhu Ram (since deceased), who was unmarried. The respondent-Jagan Nath was validly adopted by Jokhu Ram (since deceased) in the year 1990 after obtaining consent from the natural parents of the respondent. The registered adoption deed was also executed by Jokhu Ram (since deceased). After adoption, Jokhu Ram (since deceased) was treating the respondent as his son and the respondent was treating and respecting the said Jokhu Ram as his father. The respondent was also admitted to be the legal heir of Jokhu Ram (since deceased) by the PSEB as the remaining salary of Jokhu Ram (since deceased) was remitted in favour of respondent by the appellants-PSEB. Even a sum of Rs.10,000.00 was given to the respondent by Technical Board of appellants. Since, respondent was the only legal heir of Jakhu Ram, he was entitled to service benefits of Jokhu Ram and also to family pension, amount of gratuity provident fund and for service in place of Jokhu Ram alongwith all other benefits. Despite repeated requests made by respondent, appellants failed to release the family pension and other benefits to the respondent. The respondent also issued legal notice to the appellants but the same was not answered. Thereafter, the respondent preferred civil suit, which was decreed in his favour, vide judgment and decree dtd. 1/3/2005 passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Khanna. The appellants filed appeal against the same, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dtd. 23/2/2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana. Hence, the present Regular second appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants contends that both the Courts while decreeing the civil suit filed by the respondent, as well as while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants, did not appreciate that the respondent was not entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits of deceased-Jokhu Ram since adoption deed was against the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. She further contends that both the Courts did not appreciate the very fact that deceased-Jokhu Ram was unmarried and the respondent was more than 15 years of age at the time of alleged adoption deed, therefore, in view of Sec. 10 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, he could not adopt the respondent.