Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1748/2020 on 16 December, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No.1748 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Siddhartha Bankoti, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Additional CSC, for
the State of Uttarakhand.
The brief facts of the case are that late Mr.
Kunwar Singh Bhoj, who was then working as a
"Beldar" in the construction division of the Public
Works Department, Almora, met with an accident
as he fell from the cliff resulting into his death on
21.07.2012.
The petitioner contends that at the time
when Mr. Kunwar Singh Bhoj, met with the sad
demise, he was a minor. Though the fact remains
that on the said date, the petitioner was an adopted
son, and he was adopted through the legal
proceedings by way of an execution of a registered
adoption deed i.e. on 28.06.2012. He submits, that
though immediately after the death in spite of the
fact that he was a minor, he filed his application,
but thereafter immediately after attaining the age of
majority, he once again filed an application for
considering his claim for appointment on
compassionate grounds. The claim, thus, raised by
the petitioner had been rejected by the Executive
Engineer, based on the reasoning, which has been
assigned in the impugned order, which is that the
petitioner was held to be non suited to be
considered for appointment on compassionate
grounds, in view of the obligations imposed by the
Government Order No.1194/iii (1) 10-31/2008,
dated 23.03.2010, which creates a restrictions that
an adopted son will not fall to be within the
definition of the family, as provided under the
Dying in Harness Rules, and hence the petitioner
would be non suited.
It has been argued by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, that this Government Order is not
available on the website of the State nor the same
has been made as part of the record of the counter
affidavit filed by the State, in order to justify the
order of rejection dated 15.02.2018.
In that eventuality, and for another logic
also, that once under a law, if the fact of adoption is
not a fact disputed, and adoption happens to be by
way of a legally sustainable process, and which
remains unassailed, after the adoption deed is
executed legally and registered, the petitioner
acquires the status of that being of the son and will
fall to be within the definition of family as defined
under the Dying in Harness Rules, and would be
falling within the ambit and zone of consideration
for appointment on compassionate grounds. Hence
the reason, which has been assigned in the
impugned order of rejecting the claim of the
petitioner, is not accepted by this Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned
order dated 15.02.2018, is hereby quashed. The
writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back
to the Executive Engineer, to reconsider the case of
the petitioner for the grant of compassionate
appointment, and pass appropriate orders on the
petitioner's application dated 20.11.2017, in
accordance with law, except for the embargo,
which is said to have been created by the
Government Order dated 23.03.2010, on the
ground that since the petitioner was an adopted son,
and he was non-suited to be considered for the
grant of compassionate appointment.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the
writ petition is allowed. The respondents are
directed to do the needful within a period of two
months from the date of the production of a
certified copy of this judgment.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
16.12.2021
NR/
