YOGESH KUMAR SONI Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADOPTION deed, produced by the petitioner, was not executed in accordance with the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956', for short), and therefore, the State -respondents declined the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is the subject matter of assailment in the instant writ application with a prayer for an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the communication dated 27th June, 2002 and 1st November, 2001 and to further direct the State -respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Class -IV.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the essential skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy are that Shri Chhagan Lal Soni (deceased Government Servant), died as bachelor, on 1st June, 1998, while working on the post of Class -IV in the office of Assistant Engineer, Glva Dam Safety, Irrigation Sub Division, Uniara, District Tonk. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that he was adopted complying with all the social ceremonies on 22nd January, 1989. However, the adoption deed was executed and attested by the Notary Public on 26th May, 1998, and therefore, he was entitled for appointment under the Rajasthan Deceased Government Servants Dependants Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996', for short). The application claiming appointment on compassionate grounds was submitted on 29th June, 1998. Simultaneously, the terminal benefits of the deceased government servant i.e. GPF, gratuity including salary for the month of May, 1998, leave encashment, pension etc. were also claimed.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, would submit that the factum of issuance of succession certificate and release of all the claims on account of GPF, gratuity including salary for the month of May, 1998, leave encashment, pension, Regional Provident Fund and other ancillary benefits, conclusively proved the factum of adoption. The petitioner is an adopted son of the deceased Government Servant. Hence, the action of State -respondents in denying the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, under the Rules of 1996, is ex -facie, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, unwarranted and uncalled for, being contrary to the principles of natural justice as well as violative of the mandate of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.