High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Mayank Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation And Water Resourcesandors Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mansoor,Mohammad Danish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Mansoor learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 28th September, 2021 whereby claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties for release of all service dues of petitioner's father late Krishna Kumar Srivastava who died in harness on 27th March, 2017 while employed on the post of Senior Assistant, Irrigation Department, District Balrampur has also been sought as well as for a direction to opposite parties to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner.

3. It has been submitted that earlier late Krishna Kumar Srivastava during the life time of his wife Smt. Pramila Srivastava adopted the petitioner by means of deed dated 2nd February, 2007 which was notorized on 23rd February, 2011 and subsequently registered on 12th December, 2014. Since said Krishna Kumar Srivastava passed away in service on 27th March, 2017, petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment and service dues but since his representations were not addressed, he was compelled to file writ petition No. 3700 (S/S) of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated Ist July, 2021 directing authorities concerned to decide petitioner's representation. It is in pursuance thereof, that impugned order dated 28th September, 2021 has been passed rejecting petitioner's application.

4. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that the adoption deed dated 2nd February, 2007 registered on 12th December, 2014 has been held to be suspicious in nature by the Executive Engineer placing reliance on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

5. Learned counsel submits that the authority concerned has passed impugned oder as if he were exercising original powers of civil court pertaining to declaration. He has placed reliance on Sections 74, 77 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to submit that once the adoption deed was registered, it attained the status of a public document, the genuineness of which was presumed subject to rebuttal and since the aforesaid registered adoption deed was never challenged in any court of competent jurisdiction, the same could not have been rejected by the Executive Engineer, declaring it to be suspicious in nature.

6. Learned counsel has also adverted to the fact that late Krishna Kumar Srivastava during his life time and after registration of the aforesaid adoption deed submitted a letter dated 26th December, 2014 in the office of Executive Engineer which was duly received and in which he has specifically intimated the department pertaining to adoption of petitioner. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Ankit Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, writ petition No. 4852(S/S) of 2007 as well as in the case of Tarun Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 37003 of 2005.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that the authority concerned has rightly examined the aforesaid adoption deed and has reached a conclusion with regard to its being suspicious in view of the fact that the deed is said to have been executed on 2nd February, 2007 but was notarized only on 23rd February, 2011 with its subsequent registration in 2014 but no cogent explanation has been submitted for such delay in registration of the deed. It is also submitted that registration of the deed was done after demise of wife of Mr. Krishna Kumar Srivastava. It is therefore submitted that the adoption of petitioner is not legally proved. It is also submitted that adoption deed even otherwise was against provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that at the time of execution of the adoption deed on 2nd February, 2007, not only late Krishna Kumar Srivastava but his wife Smt. Pramila Srivastava were alive and have appended their signatures along with that of witnesses in the said deed which was subsequently notorized in 2011 and registered on 12th December, 2014 whereafter Krishna Kumar Srivastava passed away in service on 27th March, 2017. It is also relevant aspect that prior to his demise, the deceased by means of letter dated 26th December, 2014 had intimated the deportment pertaining to execution of the adoption deed. The said letter has been clearly received in the office of Executive Engineer and even otherwise has not been denied in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit with specific plea being raised to that effect in paragraph 18 of the writ petition.

9. It is quite evident that impugned order has been passed rejecting the aforesaid adoption deed on the ground that Executive Engineer found it suspicious in nature due to its belated notarization and registration.

10. It is settled law that in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is only the civil court of competent jurisdiction which is authorized in accordance with Specific Relief Act to accord declarations with regard to status of persons claiming before the civil court. Neither the impugned order nor the counter affidavit have indicated any provision of law whereby an Executive Engineer of the department exercising administrative powers was authorized to delve into the validity and genuineness of the registered adoption deed.

11. For purposes of grant of compassionate appointment, the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 have been notified whereunder Rule 2 (ii), a son has been indicated as a member of family who is entitled to be granted compassionate appointment.

12. The question whether adopted son is entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the aforesaid rules came up for consideration in the case of Sinhasan Gupta versus State of U.P. and another (1998) 1 UPLBEC 4 in following manner:- " another, objection raised by the respondents about the petitioner being adopt son and not the real son of the deceased is not tenable. After adoption, the petitioner is engrafted in the family of the deceased, who was his adopted father. Under Hindu Law he gets all the rights, privileges and obligations of a son. Therefore, there is no difference between a real son and adopted son. Son would include adopted son if the adoption is valid."

13. The aforesaid decision has thereafter been followed in subsequent decision in the the case of Rakhi Singh versus State of U.P. and others, 2006 (24) LCD 182.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basvarajappa versus Gurubasamma and others (2005) 12 SCC 290 has also dealt with the aspect in the following terms:- " ....... On adoption, the adoptee gets transplanted in the family in which he is adopted with the same rights as that of a natural-born son. The legal effect of giving a child in adoption is to transfer the child from the family of his birth to the family of his adoption. He severs all his ties with the family from which he is taken in adoption...."

15. It is therefore settled law that once a person is adopted in terms of the Act of 1956, the adoptee gets transplanted into the family with the same rights as a natural born son and would therefore be entitled to all such benefits as a natural born son. The aforesaid aspect has also been dealt with in the case of Tarun Kumar (supra) in the following manner:- " I am of the view that the petitioner is claiming appointment on the strength of the registered adoption deed and unless that adoption deed is set aside by the court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the aforesaid registered adoption deed cannot be overlooked. Mere, pendency of a case will not dilute the effect and consequences of registered adoption deed. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities had erred in law by not considering the petitioner's case merely on the basis of pendency of the litigation with respect to the validity of the adoption deed and issuance of the succession certificate. The respondent authority were due bound to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the registered adoption deed without being influenced by the pendency of the cases. Of course, it was open to the respondents, if after consideration of the petitioner's case they had found entitlement of the petitioner for appointment and in that situation they were at liberty to put a condition in the appointment letter itself that this appointment shall be subject to the decision in the pending cases or any other conditions particularly in the circumstances when there is no rival claim for appointment on the compassionate ground."

16. It is also evident that the adoption deed which forms the basis of petitioner's claim was admittedly a registered document and would therefore come within purview of a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, the genuineness of which would be presumed unless rebutted.

17. It is not the case of opposite parties that any member of family as late Krishna Kumar Srviastava ever raised any challenge to the adoption deed dated 2nd February, 2007 in any court of competent jurisdiction.

18. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and settled law, the impugned order dated 28th September, 2021 being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party No.4 i.e. Executive Engineer, Saryu Drainage Khand-II, District Balrampur or any other competent authority to re-consider petitioner's application for compassionate appointment ignoring the aspect of adoption, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for same. Decision on petitioner's application for compassionate appointment shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

19. A further writ is also issued in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned authority to release all service dues of late Krishna Kumar Srivastava in favour of petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

20. In view of undue harassment being suffered by petitioner, he shall also be entitled interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 27th March, 2017 (date of death of late Krishna Kumar Srivastava) till the date of actual payment on the delayed service, pensionary and family benefits of late Krishna Kumar Srivastava.

21. Consequently the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Mayank Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Irrigation And Water Resourcesandors Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Mansoor,Mohammad Danish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Mansoor learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 28th September, 2021 whereby claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. Further prayer for a direction to opposite parties for release of all service dues of petitioner's father late Krishna Kumar Srivastava who died in harness on 27th March, 2017 while employed on the post of Senior Assistant, Irrigation Department, District Balrampur has also been sought as well as for a direction to opposite parties to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner.

3. It has been submitted that earlier late Krishna Kumar Srivastava during the life time of his wife Smt. Pramila Srivastava adopted the petitioner by means of deed dated 2nd February, 2007 which was notorized on 23rd February, 2011 and subsequently registered on 12th December, 2014. Since said Krishna Kumar Srivastava passed away in service on 27th March, 2017, petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment and service dues but since his representations were not addressed, he was compelled to file writ petition No. 3700 (S/S) of 2021 which was disposed of vide order dated Ist July, 2021 directing authorities concerned to decide petitioner's representation. It is in pursuance thereof, that impugned order dated 28th September, 2021 has been passed rejecting petitioner's application.

4. It has been submitted that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that the adoption deed dated 2nd February, 2007 registered on 12th December, 2014 has been held to be suspicious in nature by the Executive Engineer placing reliance on Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.

5. Learned counsel submits that the authority concerned has passed impugned oder as if he were exercising original powers of civil court pertaining to declaration. He has placed reliance on Sections 74, 77 and 79 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 to submit that once the adoption deed was registered, it attained the status of a public document, the genuineness of which was presumed subject to rebuttal and since the aforesaid registered adoption deed was never challenged in any court of competent jurisdiction, the same could not have been rejected by the Executive Engineer, declaring it to be suspicious in nature.

6. Learned counsel has also adverted to the fact that late Krishna Kumar Srivastava during his life time and after registration of the aforesaid adoption deed submitted a letter dated 26th December, 2014 in the office of Executive Engineer which was duly received and in which he has specifically intimated the department pertaining to adoption of petitioner. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgment rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Ankit Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, writ petition No. 4852(S/S) of 2007 as well as in the case of Tarun Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 37003 of 2005.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has submitted that the authority concerned has rightly examined the aforesaid adoption deed and has reached a conclusion with regard to its being suspicious in view of the fact that the deed is said to have been executed on 2nd February, 2007 but was notarized only on 23rd February, 2011 with its subsequent registration in 2014 but no cogent explanation has been submitted for such delay in registration of the deed. It is also submitted that registration of the deed was done after demise of wife of Mr. Krishna Kumar Srivastava. It is therefore submitted that the adoption of petitioner is not legally proved. It is also submitted that adoption deed even otherwise was against provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act 1956.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident and admitted that at the time of execution of the adoption deed on 2nd February, 2007, not only late Krishna Kumar Srivastava but his wife Smt. Pramila Srivastava were alive and have appended their signatures along with that of witnesses in the said deed which was subsequently notorized in 2011 and registered on 12th December, 2014 whereafter Krishna Kumar Srivastava passed away in service on 27th March, 2017. It is also relevant aspect that prior to his demise, the deceased by means of letter dated 26th December, 2014 had intimated the deportment pertaining to execution of the adoption deed. The said letter has been clearly received in the office of Executive Engineer and even otherwise has not been denied in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit with specific plea being raised to that effect in paragraph 18 of the writ petition.

9. It is quite evident that impugned order has been passed rejecting the aforesaid adoption deed on the ground that Executive Engineer found it suspicious in nature due to its belated notarization and registration.

10. It is settled law that in terms of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is only the civil court of competent jurisdiction which is authorized in accordance with Specific Relief Act to accord declarations with regard to status of persons claiming before the civil court. Neither the impugned order nor the counter affidavit have indicated any provision of law whereby an Executive Engineer of the department exercising administrative powers was authorized to delve into the validity and genuineness of the registered adoption deed.

11. For purposes of grant of compassionate appointment, the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 have been notified whereunder Rule 2 (ii), a son has been indicated as a member of family who is entitled to be granted compassionate appointment.

12. The question whether adopted son is entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the aforesaid rules came up for consideration in the case of Sinhasan Gupta versus State of U.P. and another (1998) 1 UPLBEC 4 in following manner:- " another, objection raised by the respondents about the petitioner being adopt son and not the real son of the deceased is not tenable. After adoption, the petitioner is engrafted in the family of the deceased, who was his adopted father. Under Hindu Law he gets all the rights, privileges and obligations of a son. Therefore, there is no difference between a real son and adopted son. Son would include adopted son if the adoption is valid."

13. The aforesaid decision has thereafter been followed in subsequent decision in the the case of Rakhi Singh versus State of U.P. and others, 2006 (24) LCD 182.

14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Basvarajappa versus Gurubasamma and others (2005) 12 SCC 290 has also dealt with the aspect in the following terms:- " ....... On adoption, the adoptee gets transplanted in the family in which he is adopted with the same rights as that of a natural-born son. The legal effect of giving a child in adoption is to transfer the child from the family of his birth to the family of his adoption. He severs all his ties with the family from which he is taken in adoption...."

15. It is therefore settled law that once a person is adopted in terms of the Act of 1956, the adoptee gets transplanted into the family with the same rights as a natural born son and would therefore be entitled to all such benefits as a natural born son. The aforesaid aspect has also been dealt with in the case of Tarun Kumar (supra) in the following manner:- " I am of the view that the petitioner is claiming appointment on the strength of the registered adoption deed and unless that adoption deed is set aside by the court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the aforesaid registered adoption deed cannot be overlooked. Mere, pendency of a case will not dilute the effect and consequences of registered adoption deed. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent authorities had erred in law by not considering the petitioner's case merely on the basis of pendency of the litigation with respect to the validity of the adoption deed and issuance of the succession certificate. The respondent authority were due bound to consider the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the registered adoption deed without being influenced by the pendency of the cases. Of course, it was open to the respondents, if after consideration of the petitioner's case they had found entitlement of the petitioner for appointment and in that situation they were at liberty to put a condition in the appointment letter itself that this appointment shall be subject to the decision in the pending cases or any other conditions particularly in the circumstances when there is no rival claim for appointment on the compassionate ground."

16. It is also evident that the adoption deed which forms the basis of petitioner's claim was admittedly a registered document and would therefore come within purview of a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, the genuineness of which would be presumed unless rebutted.

17. It is not the case of opposite parties that any member of family as late Krishna Kumar Srviastava ever raised any challenge to the adoption deed dated 2nd February, 2007 in any court of competent jurisdiction.

18. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and settled law, the impugned order dated 28th September, 2021 being unsustainable is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party No.4 i.e. Executive Engineer, Saryu Drainage Khand-II, District Balrampur or any other competent authority to re-consider petitioner's application for compassionate appointment ignoring the aspect of adoption, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for same. Decision on petitioner's application for compassionate appointment shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

19. A further writ is also issued in the nature of Mandamus commanding the concerned authority to release all service dues of late Krishna Kumar Srivastava in favour of petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

20. In view of undue harassment being suffered by petitioner, he shall also be entitled interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 27th March, 2017 (date of death of late Krishna Kumar Srivastava) till the date of actual payment on the delayed service, pensionary and family benefits of late Krishna Kumar Srivastava.

21. Consequently the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench