GOPAL DAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar in Regular First Appeal No.3/2005 whereby learned first appellate court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff by confirming the the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2004 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Alwar in Civil Suit No.249/1998.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts for the disposal of the present second appeal are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondents in the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Alwar. It was alleged in the suit that one Radhey Shyam was employed on the post of Teacher in Gram Khanpura Panchayat Samiti, Thanagaji who died on 29.8.1987 while in service. It was also averred that the plaintiff being nephew of deceased Radhey Shyam, he was adopted by widow of Radhey Shyam and was entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground. It was also alleged that a request was made by him in this regard but the respondents did not accede to his request and a suit was filed with the prayer to grant mandatory injunction in favour of the appellant and against the respondents to the effect that they be directed to give appointment in place of his father Radhey Shyam as he is adopted son of deceased. It appears that initially when the case was tried against the respondents, proceedings were drawn exparte and the suit was decreed and on preferring an appeal, the learned appellate court remitted the matter back to the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 24.7.2002. After remand of the case the respondents filed written statement. The trial court on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed two issues. Both the parties tendered some documents in evidence. The learned trial court after hearing final submissions dismissed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 19.10.2004 against which the appellant preferred a regular appeal which was dismissed by the appellate court vide its judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007. Hence, the present second appeal has been filed.

(3.) IF that is so, Radhey Shyam died and thereafter his wife, as alleged by the plaintiff, adopted the plaintiff and to say that he is entitled to get all the benefits under the Dependent Rules of 1975 is not liable to be accepted. In the evidence, the mother of the plaintiff has accepted that no giving and taking ceremony was completed. It further appears that the plaintiff was of more than 15 years of age, therefore, his adoption was also not valid. It also appears from the evidence led by the parties in the suit that Radhey Shyam died on 29.8.1987 and at that time plaintiff was not in his adoption and the plaintiff-appellant applied for the first time in the year 1998. Thus, it appears that for appointment, application was made after one year, that was also belated.