Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Porvendra Paliwal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:23116) on 13 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:23116]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9115/2021
Porvendra Paliwal Adopted Son of Late Shri Ganesh Lal Ji, Aged
About 26 Years, B/c Paliwal, R/o Village Dipti, Post Sundarcha,
Tehsil And District Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, School Education
And Bhasha, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Deputy Secretary, Education (Group-2), Government
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate Of Secondary Education,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Joint Director (School Education), Udaipur District,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Education Officer (Secondary), Rajsamand,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Nagori, through VC
Mr. Devendra Khatri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
13/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of letter
dated 14.10.2020 (Annex.12) whereby the application for
compassionate appointment as filed on behalf of the petitioner has
been rejected on the count that the adoption of the petitioner was
not in terms of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1956').
[2025:RJ-JD:23116] (2 of 5) [CW-9115/2021]
2. The reason for the non acceptance of the adoption deed was
that the same was not in consonance with law as at the time of
adoption, the petitioner was above the age of 15 years.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he was adopted vide
adoption deed dated 28.10.2016 (Annex.1). The adoptive father of
the petitioner expired on 27.12.2017 and mother of the petitioner
then filed an application on 12.01.2018 (Annex.3) for
compassionate appointment to be afforded to the petitioner i.e.
her adopted son, in terms of the Rajasthan Compassionate
Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants
Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1996').
4. In the above application, the mother of the petitioner stated
that the petitioner being the legally adopted son of deceased
Ganesh Lal, is entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of
Rules of 1996. However, the application was rejected on the
premise that on the alleged date of adoption, he was above 15
years of age and in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 1956, a
person above 15 years of age cannot be adopted unless and until,
the same is permitted by the custom or usage applicable to the
parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying upon the
judgment of this Court in Ronak Joshi Vs. The State of
Rajasthan; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8556/2020 (decided on
02.09.2022) submitted that the controversy in question is
squarely covered by the ratio as laid down in Motilal Jingar Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors; S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2040/2018 (decided on 10.07.2018) relying upon which the
judgment in Ronak Joshi's case (supra) was passed.
[2025:RJ-JD:23116] (3 of 5) [CW-9115/2021]
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Department does not
refute the above submission.
7. Heard the Counsels. Perused the record.
8. In Motilal Jingar's case (supra), the relevant Clause of the
adoption deed was almost akin to the Clause in the present
adoption deed. While deciding Motilal Jingar's case (supra), the
Court came to the conclusion that the said Clause of the adoption
deed was sufficient to prove that the customary adoption was in
existence in the respective custom of the concerned parties. The
Clause of the adoption deed in Motilal Jingar's case (supra) read
as under:
"1- ;g fd izFke i{kdkj y{eh dqekjh us vius oa'k dks vkxs
pykus ds fy, viuk uke vkckn j[kus ds fy, r`rh; i{k tks
fd f}rh; i{kdkj dk izkd`frd iq= gS tks vius tkfr fjrh
fjokt vuqlkj o vius dqVqEc i{k dks bdVBk dj xksn fy;k
gS rFkk xksn dh j'e esa izFke i{kdkj us r`rh; i{k dks vius
xksn esa fcBkdj dqVqEc o ifjokj lekt okyksa esa xqM+ o
feBkbZ vkfn ckaVdj leLr tkr fcjknjh ds le{k r`rh; i{k
eksrhyky dks xksn fy;k gS] rFkk f}rh; i{kdkj us vius iq=
eksrhyky dks jkth [kq'kh ls izFke i{kdkj dks xksn fn;k gSA "
9. While dealing with the above Clause, the Court held as
under:-
"16. After hearing learned counsel for the
parties as well as perusing the record of the
case, this Court finds that Section 10(iv) of
the Act of 1956 would not bar the adoption, as
has been made in the present case,
completely, as the said provision itself
contained a proviso in relation thereto, which
is reflected from the aforequoted portion of
the said provision, and thus, the customary
adoption is also permissible under the law,
even after the person taken in adoption has
completed the age of fifteen years, if the
respective custom so permits.
[2025:RJ-JD:23116] (4 of 5) [CW-9115/2021]
17. This Court further finds that Section 10(iv)
of the Act of 1956 is not a bar or an absolute
law of adoption, and once the adoption deed
has been registered on 25.05.2015, which was
well before the death of Smt.Laxmi Jingar, the
mother of the petitioner, who expired on
31.01.2016, then it was not open for the
respondents to have denied compassionate
appointment to the petitioner."
10. In the present matter, the relevant Clause of the adoption
deed reads as under:
"5- ;g fd gekjs lekt ds ekSrchjku dks ,df=r dj nÙkdxzg.k
,oa nÙkd nsus dh çfØ;k dks iwoZ esa gh iw.kZ dj fy;k x;k gSA
nÙkdnkrk us vius iq= Jh iksjosUæ ikyhoky dks nÙkdxzfgrk ds
xksn esa fcBkdj iwjs lekt ,oa ekSrchjku esa xqM+ puk ckaVdj ,oa
lekt dk çfrHkkst dj nÙkd nsus&ysus dh çfØ;k dks iw.kZ fd;k
gSA"
11. A bare perusal of the above Clause shows that the same is
akin to the Clause in Motilal Jingar's case (supra) wherein the
Court held that the same was sufficient to prove the custom and
the usage of the adoption of a person above 15 years of age. The
ratio definitely would therefore apply to the present matter too.
12. So far as the non-registration of the adoption deed is
concerned, as observed by this Court in Keshar Singh Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors.; S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7356/2012
(decided on 10.05.2013), no provision in the Act of 1956 provides
for the essential/mandatory registration of an adoption deed.
Further, herein the registration deed was even got executed and
registered by the mother of the petitioner on 17.01.2018
(Annex.5A).
13. In view of the overall facts and circumstances and the ratio
in Motilal Jingar (supra), the present writ petition is allowed.
[2025:RJ-JD:23116] (5 of 5) [CW-9115/2021]
14. The respondent Authorities are directed to provide
compassionate appointment to the petitioner on any suitable post
as per his educational qualifications, while treating him to be a
legally adopted son of the deceased Shri Ganesh Lal, within a
period of two months from today, strictly in accordance with law.
15. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
322-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
