BABU LAL Vs. VIDHYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, by way of this petition, has prayed for a direction to respondents to appointment him on compassionate ground as per his qualification, treating him to be adopted son of deceased Kaluram Meena, who had been serving with erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board on the post of Helper Grade-I. Kaluram Meena died in harness on 26.12.1999 while serving respondent department. At that time he was working on the post of Helper Grade-I in office of Assistant Engineer (Rural), Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Sanganer, Jaipur. It is clarified that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was divided into five different companies to manage their operations independently and one of those is Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, where petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that Kaluram Meena, during his lifetime, had taken petitioner in adoption with consent of his wife on 07.01.1994. In this connection, learned counsel referred to application dated 29.06.2000, which he, for first time, submitted to respondent no.2 - Deputy Secretary (Recruitment) Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur. 'Pagri' ceremony was also held on 06.01.2000 in presence of panchas of the community and a written declaration ('ikrarnama/godnama') was signed by petitioner and his adoptive mother as well as large number of panchas. Mother of petitioner also submitted a written application to respondents on 18.03.2000 with which she produced 'godnama' dated 07.01.1994. Subsequently, when respondents did not pay terminal/retiral dues of deceased employee, petitioner and her adoptive mother Lichhmi Devi filed an application No.02/2000 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in which Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through its Chief Engineer and Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through its Secretary were also impleaded as non-applicants no.2 and 3. Issue no.2 that was framed was to the effect whether Babulal was adopted by late Kaluram and is Babulal adopted son of late Kaluram and if yes, what was its effect on present case? In those proceedings, 'ikrarnama/godnama' was exhibited in evidence as Exhibit-14. Earlier 'godnama' was also exhibited as Exhibit-17. Application dated 03.07.1985, which was submitted by Kaluram to respondent department for advancement of loan to perform 'mundan' ceremony of petitioner, was also produced in evidence and exhibited as Exhibit-12. DW-6 Govind Ram and DW-10 Babulal also proved factum of adoption. Learned District Judge, in his order dated 08.04.2004 in Succession Application No.02/2000, has recorded a finding that petitioner was legally adopted son of deceased Kaluram. Said order dated 08.04.2004 has been upheld by this court vide order dated 23.01.2006 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.757/2004 filed by one Smt. Soni and finding regarding adoption of petitioner has been affirmed. Yet, respondents by their order dated 23.06.2000 (Exhibit R-1) rejected application of petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that petitioner cannot be taken as legally adopted son of deceased Kaluram.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent opposed writ petition and submitted that respondent Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited has adopted the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. It was argued that since there is no evidence that petitioner was adopted during lifetime of deceased employee Kaluram as no registered adoption-deed has been produced, nor a mention thereof has been made in the notice for demand of justice served by the petitioner, he cannot be taken as legally adopted son of deceased employee. It was argued that judgment passed by the court of District Judge was rendered in altogether different context and, therefore, that judgment cannot be binding on the respondents.