Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rani Devi vs Union Of India on 3 June, 2021
O.A. No.330/00225/2012
Reserved
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench,
Allahabad
O.A. No.330/00225/2012
This the 3rd day of June, 2021.
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J)
Rani Devi d/o late Narayan, residing at Village Paricha near Police
Chauki, behind Punjab National Bank, District- Jhansi (U.P.).
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri S.K. Mishra
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North Central
Railway, Zonal Head Quarters , Subedarganj, Allahabad, U.P.
2. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, North Central
Railway, Jhansi (U.P.)
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri N.C. Srivastava
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Vijay Lakshmi, Member (J) By means of the present O.A., the applicant has challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 27.4.2011 (Annexure No. A-1 to the O.A.), whereby the claim of the applicant Rani Devi for compassionate appointment, has been rejected by the respondents. The applicant has sought the relief to quash the aforesaid impugned order and to direct the respondents to offer compassionate appointment to her in Railways.
3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have perused the record.
4. The relevant facts necessary for a proper adjudication of the controversy involved in the instant O.A., are that one class IV employee, Late Sri Narayan, who was employed in the North Central Railway, Jhansi Division, as a Gateman, died in harness on 28.1.1998, leaving behind his widow named Smt. Gulab Rani.
5. Smt. Gulab Rani, widow of late Narayan, filed the instant O.A., seeking compassionate appointment as applicant No. 1. Page 1 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012 However, during pendency of the O.A., Gulab Rani expired. After her death, the present applicant Rani Devi was substituted as applicant No. 1 in this O.A.
6. As per the facts mentioned in the O.A., late Sri Narayan had left behind him, his widow Smt. Gulab Rani (applicant No.1) and their adopted daughter, Rani (applicant No. 2). Rani, was taken in adoption by late Sri Narayan and his wife Gulab Rani on 6th January, 1994, from her biological parents Sri Ramdas and Prem Kunwar. An adoption deed was prepared on the same date in the presence of witnesses and necessary formalities were completed. Rani Devi was five years old at the time of her adoption. (A copy of the adoption deed has been annexed as Annexure No. A-2 to the O.A.). After the death of Sri Narayan, his widow Smt. Gulab Rani had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in Railway on 27.5.98, but her claim was rejected. Thereafter, vide application dated 2nd June, 2006 (Annexure No. A-7 to the O.A.), she requested that her adopted daughter Rani be given appointment in Railway on compassionate ground. The request made by Gulab Rani for compassionate appointment of her adopted daughter, Rani was also rejected by the respondent department vide order dated 16.3.2007 (Annexure No. A-8 to the O.A.), on the ground that adoption was not valid because Rani was taken in adoption after the death of late Sri Narayan, and the adoption deed being not registered. Being aggrieved, the applicant, Gulab Rani made a representation on 11.7.2007, requesting the respondents to reconsider their decision, but when nothing was done, she filed O.A. No. 147/2008 before this Tribunal, which was decided vide order dated 7.1.2011, whereby the respondent/ competent authority was directed to pass a fresh order within a period of 3 months on the claim/representation of the applicant.
Page 2 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012
7. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal, passed in earlier O.A. filed by Gulab Rani, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 27.4.2011, which is under challenge in the instant O.A.
8. The respondents have filed Counter reply, and have opposed the claim of the applicant by contending that late Sri Narayan, who was working as a Gateman and who died on 28.1.1998, had left behind only his widow Smt. Gulab Rani. After the death of her husband, his widow Smt. Gulab Rani submitted the claim for payment of settlement dues in her favour in prescribed form, in which she declared herself as the sole legal heir of late Sri Narayan. No adopted daughter's presence was declared by Smt. Gulab Rani, as another dependent of her deceased husband in the settlement form. Had Km. Rani (the applicant) been adopted by the deceased employee during his life time, Smt. Gulab Rani would have declared Km. Rani as their adopted daughter in the settlement form. But as she has not done so, the applicant cannot be treated as adopted daughter of deceased Sri Narayan.
9. It is further contended that Smt. Gulab Rani had applied for compassionate appointment for herself vide application dated 27.5.1998, stating clearly that she may be given appointment in place of her husband as there is no one in the family except her. On receipt of application of Smt. Gulab Rani, a Welfare Inspector was deputed for investigation in the matter, who submitted his report on 5.4.1999, to the effect that the widow is alone and she has no children. The photo copy of the report of Welfare Inspector has been filed as Annexure No. CA-2 and CA-3 to the Counter Reply. It is further contended that the respondent/ competent authority, after going through the report of the Welfare Inspector, did not find the case of Gulab Rani fit for considering compassionate appointment in view of the fact that Rs. 1,27,929/- Page 3 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012 had already been paid to Gulab Rani as settlement dues, she was also getting Rs.1685/- per month as family pension and there was no other family liability on her. Therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment of Galab Rani was rejected.
10. Smt. Gulab Rani once again applied for compassionate appointment on 6.8.2005. Her case was considered and she was called for screening on 30.1.2006, vide letter dated 9.1.2006. However, she remained absent. She was once again called for screening on 27.2.2006, But she remained absent. Ultimately she appeared on 30.3.2006 for screening and she was sent for medical examination, in which she was declared medically unfit for all categories. A copy of medical certificate dated 11.5.2006 has been filed as Annexure No. CA-4 to the counter reply.
11. Learned counsel for respondents has vehemently contended that it was only when Smt. Gulab Rani was declared medically unfit in all categories, she requested for compassionate appointment to Km. Rani, (the present applicant) claiming her as their adopted daughter, by annexing an adoption deed dated 6.1.1994 executed on a five rupee stamp paper. It is contended that the aforesaid adoption deed being an unregistered document and being registered at a later date on 12.7.2006 i.e. after the death of the employee, is not admissible in evidence and cannot be relied upon. It is further contended that as per the mandatory provision contained in Section 16 of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 17(3) of Registration Act, the Registration of adoption deed is a must to make it a valid adoption. Therefore, the unregistered adoption deed of Km. Rani being not a valid adoption deed, the applicant Km. Rani was rightly denied compassionate appointment by the respondents and there is no need to interfere in the impugned order.
Page 4 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012
12. Learned counsel for respondents has drawn my attention to the High School certificate of Km.Rani to show that Km. Rani has passed High School in the year 2006. In this certificate, the name of her father and mother is recorded as Sri Ramdas and Smt. Premkunwar, who are her biological/natural parents. My attention has also been drawn to the caste certificate issued in favour of Km. Rani on 1.3.2011, in which her father's and mother's name have been mentioned as Sri Ramdas and Smt. Premkunwar. The contention of the learned counsel for respondents is that both these documents are most cogent and trustworthy evidence of parentage of a person, which clearly show that Rani Devi was never adopted by the deceased employee in his life time. The photo copies of High School certificate 2006 and caste certificate of 2011 of Km. Rani Devi have been collectively annexed as Annexure No. CA-6 to the counter reply.
13. It is also contended that the deceased Sri Narayan had never declared Km. Rani as his adopted daughter in his life time, in his service records. Moreover, he has never taken privilege pass and P.T.O. in favour of Rani Devi.. Had Km. Rani, been the adopted daughter of deceased employee, he would have certainly availed the privilege pass and P.T.O. for her.
14. Learned counsel for respondents has further contended that as per rules, the compassionate appointment is permissible to the dependent wards of a deceased employee, whereas all the facts mentioned above fully establish that Km. Rani was never a dependent of the deceased employee late Sri Narayan.
15. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been prayed that the claim of Rani Devi for appointment on compassionate ground which was rightly rejected by the respondent by a well reasoned and speaking order dated 27.4.2011, does not requires any interference by this Tribunal .
Page 5 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012
16. The applicant has filed Rejoinder Reply, in which she has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the O.A. However, there is no rebuttal of the High School certificate, caste certificate and other documents filed by the respondents showing the names of her biological parents. In reply to all the contentions raised by the respondents, the applicant has only stated in his Rejoinder reply that the impugned order is against the letter and spirit of judgment passed by this Tribunal in earlier O.A. 147/2008.
17. I have given thoughtful consideration to rival contentions advanced by ld. Counsel for the parties. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I do not find any merit or substance in the present O.A. and it is liable to be dismissed. The reasons are as follows:-
(a). The applicant has admitted the fact that although she was taken in adoption by the deceased employee Sri Narayan on 6.1.1994, during his life time and a deed of adoption was executed on the same day, however, it got registered at a later date i.e. on 12.7.2006. The copy of the adoption deed dated 6.1.1994 is annexed as Annexure No.A-2 to the O.A. which clearly shows that it is an unregistered document executed on a Rs. 5 stamp paper, which does not fulfill the mandatory requirement for a valid adoption.
(b). Section 17 (3) of the Registration Act requires that a deed of adoption be compulsorily registered. Section 16(2) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966 also mandates that all adoptions are to be registered. Section 16(2) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966 is reproduced below for a ready reference:-
"(2) In case of an adoption made on or after the 1st day of January, 1977 no court in Uttar Pradesh shall accept any evidence in proof of the giving and taking of the child in adoption, except a document recording an Page 6 of 10 O.A. No.330/00225/2012 adoption, made and signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, and registered under any law for the time being in force:
Provided that secondary evidence of such document shall be admissible in the circumstances and the manner laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.".
It is undisputed fact that adoption deed was registered in the year 2006 i.e. after the death of employee, Even assuming for the sake of arguments that any adoption deed was executed on 6.1.94, as claimed by the applicant, this Tribunal cannot hold it as a valid adoption in view of the bar of 8.16 (2) of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1966.
(c ) Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sumit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others Writ A No. 11931 of 2016 decided on 15.3.2016 under the similar circumstances, has held as under:-
"So long as the deceased employee was alive, no valid adoption deed came into existence, on the basis of which, petitioner could claim any right. Even otherwise, a period of nearly 08 years have lapsed since the death of deceased, and in view of the law settled, a claim for grant of compassionate appointment after such inordinate delay is not liable to be entertained. The Writ Petition, consequently, lacks merit and is dismissed."
(d). In another case of Raj Kumar Saxena Vs. Basic Shiksha Parishad , U.P. and others Writ A - No. 66944 of 2006 decided on 27.3.2019, the petitioner was adopted by unregistered adoption deed dated 17.11.1980. He was given compassionate appointment on 31.3.1995 on the basis of unregistered adoption deed and in pursuance, the petitioner functioned as Assistant Teacher for over a decade. However, a complaint was filed in the office of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, alleging that petitioner was not a legally adopted Page 7 of 10 O.A. No.330/00225/2012 son. Therefore, a show cause notice, supported by a fact finding enquiry report was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted his explanation. The respondents, being not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the petitioner, terminated his services by the impugned order, on the ground that adoption deed being an unregistered document, could not have been acted upon. The order of termination was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court on the ground that the i) services of the petitioner could not have been terminated after rendering prolonged service of 14 years; ii) there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner; iii) adoption deed is a valid and legal deed. However, Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition, placing reliance of several judgments and legal provisions, by observing as under:-
"22. On plain reading of Section 16(2)/and 49(c) of Act, 1956and Act, 1908, respectively, incorporated by State amendment, it clearly mandates that any document creating any right or relationship shall not be received in evidence creating such right or relationship unless it has been registered. Accordingly, the adoption deed is unreceivable in evidence recording an adoption, further, the adoption in view of Section 11(i) of Act, 1956 is invalid. Petitioner, admittedly, being the son's son of the adoptive mother living at the time of adoption could not have been taken in adoption."
(e). It is also noteworthy that in the aforesaid case too, the name of biological parent was recorded in the High School and Intermediate certificate, despite the fact that the petitioner was adopted long before appearing in High School and Intermediate examination. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in para 34,35 and 36 of the aforesaid judgment held as under:-
"34. Section 12 of Act, 1956 deals with the effects of adoption. The adopted child shall be deemed to be the Page 8 of 10 O.A. No.330/00225/2012 child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family. In other words, on adoption, adoptee gets transplanted in adopting family with the same rights as that of natural born son. (Refer: Basavarajappa vs. Gurubasamma)
35. On specific query, as to how, the names of biological parents came to be recorded in the high school and intermediate certificates despite the petitioner having been adopted at the age of 7 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Single Judge of this Court in Ravindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, to contend that the Board of High School and Intermediate Examination records the names of the biological parents instead of the adoptive parent in the high school/and intermediate certificates, therefore, the names of the biological parents and not the adoptive mother came to be recorded in the certificates. The facts obtaining in Ravindra Kumar (supra) is distinguishable. The deed of adoption was a registered deed and a valid deed; the petitioner, therein, had approached the Board for correction of the certificate which was declined by the Board in absence of rules permitting such correction. This is not the case in the instant case. The deed of adoption is invalid and unenforceable in law.
36. The plea on the face of it is untenable for the reason that the petitioner as per his own case was adopted at the age of 7 years and in view of the Section 12 of the Act, 1956, the adopted child for all purposes shall be deemed to be the child of his adoptive parent. However, the name of the adoptive mother does not find recorded in either of the certificates (class 10 and 12). Nor does such a reference finds in the Parivar Register prepared under U.P. Panchayat Raj (Maintenance of Family Register) Rule, 1970. It therefore, follows that until taking the examination of class 12, the alleged adoption deed had not seen the light of day. It was an afterthought to get an unregistered adoption deed executed for the purposes of obtaining compassionate appointment. The State Amendments came to be inserted in Act, 1956 and Act, 1908 to avoid such fraud and misrepresentation on the basis of such document."
(f). The well settled legal position with regard to compassionate appointment is that a compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right but rather it is to be granted on a consideration of the financial distress and hardship being faced by the family of the deceased employee and in order to grant succor and immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee.
Page 9 of 10
O.A. No.330/00225/2012
18. The deceased late Sri Narayan died in the year 1998 and if the family has been able to survive for 23 years after the death of the bread winner of the family, the sense of immediacy to tide over the financial crises no longer remain.
19. In view of all the facts and circumstances and in wake of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court, I find no merit in the O.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed.
20. No order as to costs.
(Justice Vijay Lakshmi) Member (J) HLS/-
Page 10 of 10