Pratap Ram Sandilya vs State of C.G.

Nawal Kishore Agarwal, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 29-4-2006 (Annexure P-3), passed by the respondent No. 2 rejecting the petitioner''s application for his appointment on compassionate ground, the instant petition has been filed. As per petitioner''s case, he is adopted son of one Shri Mohar Sai Sandilya, who died on 29-8-2000 while working as Upper Division Teacher at Middle School, Khamariya, Block Udaipur, District Sarguja. After death of his father he applied for his appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the policy issued by the State of Chhattisgarh in the year 2003. Vide order impugned, the above application was dismissed inter alia on the ground that as per policy prevailing at the relevant time, adopted son was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

According to the reply of the respondents, as the petitioner''s father died before formation of State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, as per policy dated 10-6-1994 (Annexure R-2) prevailing in the State of Madhya Pradesh only legitimate son and daughters were entitled for appointment on compassionate ground and not the adopted son.

I have heard the Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.

The above contention raised by the respondents in their return on the face appears to be misconceived in as much as per Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956, an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of her adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family and the adopted son is as legitimate as the natural son.

In view of the above, rejection of petitioner''s application for appointment on compassionate ground by the respondent No. 2 on the above ground is not sustainable in law.

For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed, the order impugned dated 29-4-2006 (Annexure P-3) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 to decide the petitioner''s prayer a fresh in accordance with the law, after verifying the fact that whether or not the petitioner''s adoption is legal. No order as to costs.