Allahabad High Court
Km. Ani Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 2 February, 2023
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 148 of 2022
Appellant :- Km. Ani Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Co-Operative Societies And Another
Counsel for Appellant :- Dharam Prakash,Sanjay Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for opposite party No.2 and learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No.1.
2. This present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12.04.2022 passed in Writ A No.2096 of 2022 ( Km Ani Singh vs State of U.P. and another), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, in the following terms :
"Heard.
Petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment consequent to the death of Late Anil Kumar Singh has been declined on 17.02.2022 by the General Manager (Administration), Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Village Development Bank Ltd. on the ground that the adoption deed which is mandatory in the State of U.P. in view of the amendment to Section 16 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, is of a date subsequent to death of Anil Kumar Singh, therefore, she can not be treated as the adopted daughter of Late Anil Kumar Singh and can not be provided compassionate appointment.
On being confronted learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she in fact had been adopted while Late Anil Kumar Singh was still alive, however, the petition does not mention any such date of adoption prior to death of Late Anil Kumar Singh who died on 12.09.2016. In fact the adoption deed a copy of which is annexed with the writ petition is dated 07.12.2016 and it mentions the relevant ceremony relating to adoption having taken place on 11.10.2016.
Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the contesting opposite party informed that on the date of adoption the petitioner was more than 15 years of age, therefore, the adoption in any case could not have taken place on the said date in view of Section 10(4) of the Act, 1956. Moreover, subsequent adoption is by the wife of Late Anil Kumar Singh.
As no infirmity has been pointed by learned counsel for petitioner in the impugned order, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is dismissed."
3. The writ petitioner is the appellant before us.
4. Counsel for the appellant has sought to contend that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is non speaking and that the ground on which the writ petitioner-appellant's claim for compassionate appointment had been rejected by the respondent authority, as indicated in the order dated 17.02.2022, has not been adverted to.
5. Having considered the judgment under appeal and also the record of the writ petition, which forms part of the paper book of the Special Appeal, we are of the view that the argument which has been sought to be raised on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant, is wholly without force.
6. The principal reason assigned by the respondent authority in the order dated 17.02.2022 whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant for compassionate appointment had been rejected, is that the adoption deed, on the basis of which the petitioner had set up her claim, was bearing date 07.12.2016, which is consequent to the date of the death of the employee of the respondent bank. The writ petitioner has claimed herself to be the adopted daughter of the aforestated employee.
7. In terms of the order dated 17.02.2022, which was assailed in the writ petition, the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected by referring to the aforestated fact that the date of adoption is consequent to the death of the death of the employee; accordingly, at the time of death of the employee, the writ petitioner could not be stated to be 'member of the the family' of the deceased and in view thereof she was not entitled for grant of compassionate appointment under Regulation 104 of the Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Samiti Karmchari Seva Viniyamawali, 1975.
8. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has specifically noticed of the aforestated fact that the adoption deed on the basis of which the petitioner seeks to set up his claim is of a date consequent to the date of the death of the employee. In addition, the judgment of the writ court also takes note of the fact that on the date of adoption the writ petitioner was more than 15 years of age and, therefore, the adoption could not be held to be valid in view of the provisions contained under sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
9. We do not find any material error or infirmity in the judgment of the writ court, which may persuade us to interfere in the matter.
10. The Special Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 2.2.2023
Sachdeva
