Nafr High Court
Case Details
SMT NIRMALA RAO 1 2025:CGHC:29839 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7337 of 2018 1 - Rahul Rao Shinde S/o Rajeshwar Rao Shinde Aged About 24 Years R/o Q.No. P-37, Ambedkar Awas, Imlibhata, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, Police Station - Sarkanda, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Mob.No. 8103663488, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. Versus ... Petitioner 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, P.S. Kewli, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Under Secretary Department Of Health Education, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur, P.S. Kewli, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Director Health Education, Mantralaya Raipur, P.S. Kewli, Tahsil Civil And Revenue District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Dean Cims Hospital Bilaspur, Police Station - City Kotwali, Tahsil, Civil And Revenue District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner For Respondent/State : :
Legal Reasoning
Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocate. Mr. Topilal Bareth, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 02/07/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- 2 “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for entire records of the case, from the authorities. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and quash the order dated 26/09/2018 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 10.3 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Jyoti Rao Shinde, who was working as a Ward Aaya at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, died in harness on 11.7.2016. She would further submit that the petitioner is the adopted son of Smt. Jyoti Rao Shinde. She would contend that the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities on the basis of an adoption deed dated 19.8.2014. She would further submit that the petitioner was adopted by late Smt. Jyoti Rao Shinde in the presence of members of the society according to the custom and usage in the year 2003. She would further contend that the petitioner is highly educated, having graduated in Microbiology in the year 2015 thus he is eligible for the grant of compassionate appointment. She would also contend that the application moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent authorities vide order dated 26.9.2018 by a cryptic order. It is argued that the decision taken by the respondent authorities is contrary to the policy governing compassionate appointment and it is in 3 violation of the principles of natural justice. She would pray to quash the order dated 26.9.2018 passed by respondent No.1. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would contend that the adoption deed dated 19.8.2014 is not a valid legal document, as it was executed on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.500/-. He would contend that the petitioner was not adopted according to provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. He would further submit that in the year 2014, the age of the petitioner was 20 years whereas late Smt. Jyoti Rao Shinde was 32 years old, therefore, the adoption was not permissible according to provisions of Section 11(iv) of the Act, 1956. He would contend that respondent No.1, after taking into consideration the material facts, rightly rejected the application moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. In the present case, late Smt. Jyoti Rao Shinde was not the biological mother of the petitioner. According to the pleadings made in the writ petition, the petitioner was adopted according to custom and usage in the year 2003 and an adoption deed was executed on 19.8.2014. Clause 5(b) of the Policy for Compassionate Appointment states that an adopted son would be entitled to compassionate appointment. 6. In the present case, the petitioner failed to establish that he was adopted by late Smt. Jyoti Rao Shinde in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1956, which outlines the requisites of a valid 4 adoption. Section 6 of the Act, 1956 provides that no adoption shall be valid unless - (i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the right, to take in adoption; (ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to do so; (iii) the persons adopted is capable of being taken in adoption; and (iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other conditions mentioned in this Chapter. Section 8 of the Act, 1956 deals with the capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption. As per this Section, any female Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption. Provided that, if she has a husband living, she shall not adopt a son or daughter except with the consent of her husband. Section 9 of the Act, 1956 deals with persons capable of giving in adoption. This section says that no person except the father, mother or guardian of a child shall have the capacity to give the child in adoption. Section 10 of the Act, 1956 deals with persons who may be adopted. This section says that a person who is a Hindu, who has not been adopted, who has not been married and who has not completed the age of 15 years may be adopted. Section 11 of the Act, 1956 deals with other conditions for a valid adoption. According to sub-section (iv) of Section 11 if the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is a male, the adoptive mother must be at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted. 7. In the present case, the petitioner could not prove the fact that the consent of his natural parents was obtained prior to adoption and he was adopted according to custom and usage applicable in their 5 community. The petitioner also failed to establish that he was below 15 years of age on the date of adoption, or that there was a minimum age difference of 21 years between the adoptive mother and the petitioner. Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioner was not adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1956. 8. Respondent No.1, in its order dated 26.9.2019, has considered the relevant grounds while rejecting the application for compassionate appointment moved by the petitioner. Thus I do not find any good ground to interfere with the findings recorded by respondent No.1. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi