Patna High Court
Om Kumar Mahto vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 28 February, 2025
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3268 of 2017
======================================================
Om Kumar Mahto Son of Late Ram Chandra Mahto, Resident of Village-
Deodha, P.S.- Hasanpur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Collector cum Chairman of District Compassionate Committee,
Darbhanga.
3. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Darbhanga.
4. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Superintending Engineer, Tube Well Circle, Darbhanga.
6. The Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Darbhanga.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhay Shankar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Upadhyay, A.C. to G.P.-7
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 28-02-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction
to quash the decision of respondent no. 2, taken in the meeting
of the District Compassionate Committee held on 15.12.2016,
by which the petitioner's claim for appointment on
compassionate grounds was rejected. The petitioner further
Patna High Court CWJC No.3268 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025
2/5
prays for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on
compassionate grounds due to the death of his father, late Ram
Chandra Mahto, who passed away while in service on
12.04.2013
as a Tube Well Operator under the Superintending
Engineer, Tube Well Circle, Darbhanga.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was the adopted son of late Ram Chandra Mahto,
having been adopted on 18.10.2006 as per Hindu rights and
rituals, when he was only about 10 years old. The said employee
passed away during his service on 12.04.2013 while working as
a Tube Well Driver in the Darbhanga Division under the
Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Darbhanga. The
registered deed of adoption was executed on 02.05.2013. After
becoming a major upon reaching the age of 18 on 01.05.2014,
the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment before the
Executive Engineer, Tube Well Division, Darbhanga, on
15.07.2014. The petitioner's case was placed before the District
Compassionate Committee on 12.09.2014, but it was not
considered and was delayed for various reasons. Subsequently,
the petitioner approached this Court through CWJC No. 2590 of
2015, which was disposed of by an order dated 12.02.2015,
directing the concerned respondents to take a decision on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.3268 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025
petitioner's claim in accordance with the law, without
expressing any opinion on its merits. Thereafter, the petitioner
filed a representation along with a copy of the order, and on
23.08.2016, a decision was taken, rejecting his claim for
compassionate appointment. The rejection was based on the
ground that the adoption certificate was registered on
02.05.2013, whereas the deceased employee had passed away
on 12.04.2013, and therefore, the petitioner's case was not
considered valid. Learned counsel further submits that, prior to
the execution of the registered document, an affidavit had been
prepared before a Notary Public, which is annexed as Annexure-
1 series to the present writ petition. Counsel submits that the
deed of adoption was prepared in continuation of this affidavit
and should therefore be considered valid, rather than being
treated as having been executed after the death of the deceased
employee. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is
entitled to relief.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that a counter
affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. In
the said counter affidavit, the decision of the District
Compassionate Committee has been annexed as Annexure-D,
wherein the claim of the petitioner is listed at Sl. No. 1.
Patna High Court CWJC No.3268 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
Annexure-D to the counter affidavit is a document containing
the decision of the District Compassionate Committee, dated
23.08.2016, in which a total of five points were discussed. One
of the points raised was that the adoption certificate was
registered on 02.05.2013, whereas the deceased employee
passed away on 12.04.2013. Another point considered by the
Committee was that the signatures in the affidavit and the
service book differed in the adoption deed of 2006. He further
submits that, following these discussions, the Committee finally
decided the case of the petitioner along with 21 other
individuals, and the petitioner's claim was rejected. This
decision is annexed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit,
where the petitioner is listed at Sl. No. 1.
6. After hearing the parties and reviewing the
documents, it transpires to this Court that there are two relevant
documents. The first is an affidavit dated 18.10.2006, prepared
before the Notary Public, and the second is a registered deed of
adoption, executed on 02.05.2013. Regarding the registered
deed of adoption, it is an admitted fact that the deed was
executed after the death of the deceased employee. However,
upon perusal of the affidavit of the Notary Public, this Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.3268 of 2017 dt.28-02-2025
finds that the said affidavit cannot be treated as an adoptive
document, as it lacks the signatures of the natural parents.
7. As such, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief
to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Ashwini/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 04/03/2025
Transmission Date NA
