RAFIQ AHMED Vs. JAIPUR VIDHYUT VITARAN NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner applied for compassionate appointment which has been denied by the respondents finding it to be contrary to the rules. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was adopted by the erstwhile employee who died while in service. The adoption cannot be judged pursuant to the rules of the respondents organisation inasmuch as no rule exist in regard to adoption. The petitioner is one who had received all other retiral benefits like PF, Gratuity etc. In view of above, now, he cannot be denied compassionate appointment. In the reply, respondents have come out for the first time and that adoption is not permissible under Mohammedan Law. It is in variance to the reasons recorded in the impugned order. Keeping in mind the aforesaid direction may be issued for compassionate appointment.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondents opposed the prayer.

(3.) IT is case where claim for compassionate appointment has been made showing petitioner to be adopted son of the erstwhile employee. Learned counsel for petitioner is fair enough to accept that Mohammedan Law does not permit adoption. An argument has been raised regarding permissibility of the adoption as per the custom. However, I find no pleading in the writ petition to show any custom so as to permit adoption. The pleading on the issue is silent. In the background aforesaid, so far as adoption of the petitioner is concerned, it is not permissible under Mohammedan law thus respondents rightly denied the benefit of compassionate appointment.