CHHOTE LAL UPADHYAY Vs. BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar on behalf of Bihar State Electricity Board.

(2.) The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:

(3.) Mr. Kumar in support of the aforementioned prayer would submit that the impugned order rejecting the claim of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground only because he was an adopted son of the deceased employee of the Board cannot be sustained either on fact or in law, inasmuch as the Board having adopted the Government circular dated 5.10.1991 as with regard to prohibiting adopted son for being appointed on compassionate ground would be bound by the judgment of this Court holding in the case of appointment in Government service that even an adopted son would be standing in the same category as a natural son for the purposes of compassionate appointment. He would eventually submit that the impugned order based on the circular dated 21.4.1993 cannot be sustained especially when a similar provision was amended by the State Government by issuing a circular dated 12.5.2005 wherein this Court had held that the classification and distinction made between the natural son and adopted son was absolutely against the spirit of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Hindu Law as also in the background of scheme of compassionate appointment seeking to rehabilitate the dependent family members of the deceased employee being a beneficial provision. He would further submit that the fact regarding the petitioner being adopted son cannot be disputed nor has been disputed in the impugned order and in fact his case has been rejected only on the ground of his being adopted son and not that his adoption was invalid.