Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 18 November, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150303
CWP No. 24320 of 2016 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(211) CWP No. 24320 of 2016 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 18.11.2024
Gurpreet Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. S.L. Chander Shekhar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)
1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the
petitioner is that petitioner has been declined the benefit of compassionate
appointment vide order dated 30.05.2016 (Annexure P-17), which is arbitrary
and illegal and the respondents are liable to be directed to consider the claim
of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.
2. As per the facts mentioned in the present petition, Sadhu Ram
who was wedded to Smt. Sita Vanti had three sons and two daughters. In a
terrorist attack, three sons of Sadhu Ram were killed. Keeping in view the
fact that all the sons of Sadhu Ram were killed, Sadhu Ram along with his
wife Smt. Sita Vanti adopted the son of her elder daughter on 14.02.1991 i.e.
the petitioner. At the time of the adoption, the petitioner was four years old.
Thereafter, Sadhu Ram also died and petitioner lived with Sita Vanti.
3. After passing of the matriculation examination, the petitioner
claimed the benefit of compassionate appointment on 19.04.2014 under the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150303
Policy which gave compassionate appointment to a member of family of a
terrorist victim. The application of the petitioner was considered by the
respondents and it came on record that the petitioner was adopted by Sadhu
Ram and Sita Vanti but the claim of the petitioner for the grant of
compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the said adoption
was after the date Sadhu Ram suffered at the hands of terrorist, hence, in case
of any adoption which is after the incident/death, the benefit of
compassionate appointment cannot be given. The claim of the petitioner was
rejected by the Deputy Commission, Ferozepur on the ground that the
petitioner was adopted after the death of the sons of Sadhu Ram and Sita
Vanti, hence no benefit of compassionate appointment can be given to the
petitioner, which order is under challenge in the present petition.
4. Upon notice of motion, the respondents have maintained the said
stand and submitted that though, as per the enquiry conducted after the
application being filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment,
it has come on record that there was adoption deed of the petitioner executed
by Sadhu Ram and Sita Vanti but, as the adoption was after the death of the
sons of the couple, the claim of the petitioner for the grant of compassionate
appointment has rightly been rejected.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
6. The only question which arises in the present petition is whether,
any adoption after the death of the concerned, the benefit of compassionate
appointment can be given or not.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150303
7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considered the said issue
while passing order in CWP No. 24521 of 2015 titled as Sukhwinder Kaur
Vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 20.07.2016 (Annexure P-18).
The Co-ordinate Bench came to the conclusion that once the adoption is not
disputed but the adoption was after the death of the concerned, still the
benefit of compassionate appointment can be claimed. The relevant
paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-
"After hearing learned counsel for the parties and
examining the available record, I am of the considered opinion
that the impugned order is totally unreasonable. Husband of the
petitioner, who retired from the BSF, was mistaken as a terrorist
along with her minor son and three others was killed by the
CRPF, as a result thereof, practically, the petitioner, not only
became widow but also an orphan and in order to survive
emotionally, she adopted her brother's son at the time of his
birth and thereafter the adopted son is recorded in all the public
documents i.e. the certificate issued by the Punjab School
Education Board etc. as son of Gurcharan Singh and
Sukhwinder Kaur and not the son of her natural parents. The
policy dated 05.02.1996 appears to have been made to
rehabilitate the families whose bread-winner is either killed or
100% physically handicapped either in terrorist action or by
security forces by offering employment on compassionate ground
either to the widow, dependent son, dependent unmarried
daughter, adopted unmarried son or adopted unmarried
daughter.
In the present case, the adoption is not of a major/adult
person just in order to obtain the benefit of the policy rather the
adoption took place even before the policy came into being. The
adoption was for the purpose of giving support to the widowed
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150303
petitioner in her old age and for that matter, her own brother
came forward by giving his son in adoption to his sister. The
objection raised by the respondents in the impugned order that
the adopted son Jaskaran Singh is not the son of the deceased
Gurcharan Singh is really fantastic because the petitioner has
placed on record voluminous documentary evidence such as his
academic testimonials in which he has been recorded as the son
of Gurcharan Singh and not the son of his natural father. Even
otherwise, as per Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956, after the adoption takes place, the ties of
the adopted person are permanently disconnected with his
natural family for all intents and purposes. Moreover,
in Kanwaljit Singh's case (supra), relied upon by the counsel for
the petitioner, this Court has categorically held that the son
adopted by widow gets transplanted from natural parents to
adoptive family and becomes son not only of widow but also of
deceased husband of the widow.
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the present writ
petition is hereby allowed, impugned order is set aside and the
respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner for
the purpose of compassionate appointment to her adopted
dependent unmarried son as early as possible, preferably within
a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
this order."
8. In the present case, as the three sons of Sadhu Ram and Sita
Vanti were killed in a terrorist action in 1989, the petitioner who is the son of
the daughter of Sadhu Ram and Sita Vanti, was adopted as far back as 1991
i.e. after the loss of their sons in the terrorist attack.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to
differentiate that a direction has already been given by the Co-ordinate Bench
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150303
in Sukhwinder Kaur's case (supra) by treating a person adopted after the
death of the concerned person to be entitled for compassionate appointment
under the Policy for the terrorist victim, the claim of the petitioner has
wrongly been rejected by the respondents and the said rejection is contrary to
the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench in Sukhwinder Kaur's case
(supra).
10. Keeping in view the above, the impugned order dated
30.05.2016 (Annexure P-17) is set-aside. The respondents are directed to
consider the claim of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment. In
case, the petitioner is found eligible in all respects, the petitioner should be
allowed the benefit of compassionate appointment. The claim of the
petitioner will not be rejected on the ground that the adoption of the
petitioner was after the incident where the family of Sadhu Ram and Sita
Vanti suffered at the hands of the terrorist. Let the consideration be
completed within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of copy of this order.
11. Petition is allowed in above terms.
12. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
November 18, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
kanchan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : Yes
5 of 5
