SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment claiming himself to be adopted son and dependent of the deceased Government Servant Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma who died while in Government service.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is an adopted son of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma who died in an accident on 11/04/2003 while in Government service. On 20/05/2003, the petitioner filed an application in prescribed form alongwith all necessary documents for appointment on compassionate ground being dependent of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma. The petitioner also filed one Civil Suit against against Smt. Vimal Devi, wife of the deceased Government Servant Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma for declaration and permanent injunction regarding his adoption and permanent injunction. In the said Civil Suit vide judgment dtd. 24/07/2003, it was declared that the petitioner is an adopted son of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma. It is contended that in spite of the said judgment, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not accepted by the respondents on the premise that in all the educational qualifications documents like marks sheets, character certificates instead of name of late Kailash Chandra Sharma, name of the biological father Mr. Giriraj Prasad Sharma was there which is evident from Annexure 4 dtd. 16/06/2003. In this background, the present writ petition was filed submitting that in the light of judgment dtd. 24/07/2003 passed by the competent civil court and on account that the adoption took place on 21/04/1983, the petitioner being adopted son of the deceased Government Servant, is entitled to be given compassionate appointment.

(3.) Per-contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the adoption was an afterthought as the same took place on 24/07/2003 i.e. fter death and not during lifetime of the deceased Government servant and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to avail benefit of compassionate appointment in terms of the provision of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996. Secondly, the respondents have placed reliance upon the application form submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment (Ann.-3) and the letter dtd. 16/06/2003 of the respondents (Ann.-4) from which it is evident that the petitioner has shown himself to be aged about 32 years and married at the time of submission of application form and that the name of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma was also not reflecting as his father in his marks sheets and character certificates etc. even when he claims that the adoption took place on 21/04/1983 as per customs.