BISHWANATH HARI @ BISHUN HARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, in the instant case, has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 24.1.1996 referred to in the Memo dated 15.2.1996 (Annexure 5) by which it was inter alia informed that no compassionate appointment can be given to an adopted son and consequently the application filed by the petitioner stood rejected. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to him on account of the death of his adoptive father, late Jagan Hari who died in harness while working under the respondents.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, Jagan Hari (father of the petitioner) was a permanent Grade IV employee working in the Patliputra Medical College and Hospital, Dhanbad and since he was issueless, he had adopted this petitioner as his son on 11.1.1978 in the presence of villagers and after following customs and usage. On 11.2.1995, the said Jagan Hari died in harness leaving behind his wife and the petitioner. Thereafter Jagan Hari 'swife applied for payment of the entire dues and requested the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner by her letter dated 1.3.1995 as contained in Annexure 3. On 4.8.1995, a formal deed of adoption was also drawn up and it was registered in the Dhanbad Sub -Registry. The said deed of adoption was duly executed between the natural parents of the petitioner and his adoptive mother. Thereafter, on 15.2.1996, the petitioner came to learn that his application for compassionate appointment had been rejected vide an order dated 24.1.1996. The said communication was made vide Annexure 5. In the meantime, on 15.8.2000, the mother of the petitioner also died. Thereafter the petitioner pursued the matter in relation to payment of the dues of his father and the respondents asked him to obtain an succession certificate which was issued on 23.4.2002 vide Annexure 7. According to the petitioner, he being the adopted son, was entitled for compassionate appointment and the respondents cannot discriminate vis -a -vis a natural son.

(3.) THUS the ground on which the application of the petitioner was rejected, as is evidence upon reading the impugned order as also the statements made in the counter affidavit, is that it is only a natural born son who is entitled to compassionate appointment and not an adopted son. Such a ground obviously is wholly illegal apart from being discriminatory and in complete violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. An adopted son of an issueless couple is a son to them for all practical purposes and once a child is adopted, the respondents cannot create an embargo on his rights which are identical to that of a natural born child. Additionally, such a ground is obviously contrary to the provisions of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 which reads as under :