Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 797 of 2018 Appellant :- Ram Prakash(Since Deceased) Respondent :- U.P. State Electricity Board And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Devendra Dahma Counsel for Respondent :- Baleshwar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
Heard Shri Devendra Dahma, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashutosh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Electricity Department-respondents.
Appellant Ram Prakash has died and this appeal has been preferred by his widow Kusum Lata.
The deceased-petitioner Ram Prakash challenged his order of termination, whereby his services on a temporary basis had been dispensed with by the Executive Engineer, Electricity Urban Distribution Division. Counter Affidavit filed before the learned Single Judge discloses that the appellant had succeeded in getting compassionate appointment in the Electricity Department on the ground that he was the adopted son of tenure holder Jayanti Prasad Sharma, whose land has been acquired by the Electricity Department. Under the then existing policy an employment to the dependent of such a tenure holder was extendable.
The counter affidavit further discloses that there was no evidence of the appellant being the adopted son of Jayanti Prasad and that the appellant had obtained appointment by misleading the Department. The counter affidavit further relied upon the letter on the basis whereof the deceased appellant Ram Prakash had joined the services disclosing himself to be the son of Shri Shyam Lal Sharma and not Jyanti Prasad Sharma.
The dispute, therefore in short was as to whether the deceased appellant Ram Prakash was the adopted son of Jayanti Prasad so as to claim compassionate appointment. Even though any such a rule extended for compassionate appointment has now been held by the Apex Court to be constitutionally invalid, yet at the time of appointment being made in the year 1989, the law in this regard did extend such benefit.
However, in the instant case, the appointment of the deceased Ram Prakash had been obtained on the basis of a complete misinformation tendered to the Department about his alleged status of being the adopted son of Jayanti Prasad. There is no dispute that he being Hindu, any adoption was permissible only in terms of The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which requires tendering of sufficient proof and subject to the provisions therein that the adoptee does not fall within the prohibited category defined therein. By way of an amendment made in the Act, the registration of such adoption has been made compulsory. Such being the compulsion of law, the issue of the appellant being the adopted son of Jayanti Prasad has not been established before this Court. In the absence of any proof, the stand taken in the counter affidavit before the learned Single Judge by the respondents appears to be correct and that was sufficient ground for denying any relief to the appellant inasmuch as he has admitted to be the son of Shyam Lal Sharma.
In this factual backdrop, even though, we don't find any necessity to approve the bulky findings recorded by the learned Single Judge on the issue of status of employment yet on facts late Ram Prakash was not entitled for compassionate appointment as he had failed to establish to be the adopted son of Jayanti Prasad. Consequently, the appellant Kusum Lata being the widow of Ram Prakash is not entitled for any relief and consequently, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2018 SFH