Om Prakash VII ORDER
Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
1. The present O.A. has been filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, with the following reliefs:-
a) To issue order and direction and to quash the impugned order dated 14.7.2020 passed by DRM, Allahabad (Annexure No. A-1).
b) To issue order and direction to the respondent No. 2 for consider the applicant for compassionate appointment with all consequential benefits, or to pass such other and further orders or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
c) To issue award cost and compensation in favour of the applicant.
2. The case in brief as unfolded in the O.A. is that applicant is the adopted son of Smt. Dhanpati Devi, as per registered adoption deed dated 20.10.2011. Smt. Dhanpati Devi, who was Group D Safai Karmchari under the Chief Health Inspector, Railway, Allahabad died on 11.12.2011, while in service. Tehsildar Sadar, Allahabad had issued family register of late Dhanpati Devi, by which she has left one daughter and one (married ) son as recorded in the family of the deceased employee. Applicant has passed the Senior Secondary School Examination in the year 2016, in which the name of mother of the applicant clearly recorded as Smt. Dhanpati Devi. Applicant was minor at the time of death of his mother. Respondents have paid the retiral dues and also granted family pension w.e.f. 12.12.2011 in favour of the applicant, as per registered adoption deed. He is receiving pension @ 14,087/- per month from the respondents. Applicant moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 19.8.2016, when he attained majority but the respondent No. 3 has rejected the case of the applicant for granting compassionate appointment.
3. Learned counsel for respondents have filed counter reply, through which it is stated that the name of the applicant is not appearing in any paper of the record. i.e. pass, medical card of the deceased. The adoption deed was not presented before the Railway Administration by late Smt. Dhanpati Devi during her life time and has been presented after a lapse of six years and it has not been executed properly in accordance with law. It is further submitted that Smt. Dhanpati Devi has left behind one married daughter Smt. Shanti Devi, who is living with her husband and the applicant is the biological son of Smt. Shanti Devi and Shri Ram Bahadur, who was allegedly adopted by Smt. Dhanpati Devi on 20.10.2011, which is mere one month and twenty one days before the death of the employees due to her critical illness. Hence the adoption taken by Smt. Dhanpati Devi is illegal, invalid and not in conformity with the provisions of Section 11 (vi) and 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, because the applicant is still residing in his original family. In addition to that, it is also stated that applicant has already received retiral benefits of Rs. 7,43,618/- of late Smt. Dhanpati Devi. Apart from the above, applicant is also getting family pension of Rs. 15,667/- per month from the Railways.
4. Heard Shri Syed Mushfiq Ali, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is the adopted son of the deceased employee who died during service. Thereafter, the applicant had applied for compassionate appointment which was rejected by the authority concerned on 08.12.2017. The applicant approached before this Court through O.A./186/2018 (page 55) and the same was allowed directing the respondents to decide afresh in light of the observation recorded in the aforesaid O.A. Referring to the impugned order, learned counsel for the applicant further argued that impugned order was passed by the authority concerned on the same fashion. Observations recorded by the Bench in the aforesaid O.A. have not been considered. Referring to para 4 of the order dated 14.07.2020 it wa........