Dismissed

Govind Sharma S/O Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Sharma v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2024CW/16925/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, who claimed adoption. The court rejected the claim due to conflicting school records indicating lack of clean hands and the absence of proof of financial dependency on the deceased, compounded by inordinate delay in filing.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and accompanying applications are dismissed with no order as to costs.

Govind Sharma S/O Late Shri Chhuttan Lal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:36768-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16925/2022

¶4

Govind Sharma S/o Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 2629, Jai Lal Munshi Ka Rasta, Imli Ka Choraha, Chowkri Purani Basti, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union Of India, Through Manager (General), North Western Railway, Near Railway Station, Jaipur.

¶8

The General Manager (Karmik), North Western Railway, Main Office Railway, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranava Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

02/09/2024

¶14

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition aggrieved by order dated 30.05.2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was dismissed.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was adopted by Chhuttan Lal Sharma and adoption deed was executed on 06.03.2002. Chhuttan Lal Sharma expired on 30.11.2003, thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 17.12.2003. The petitioner also obtained Succession Certificate on 07.05.2005 passed by District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The petitioner was not considered

¶16

[2024:RJ-JP:36768-DB]

¶17

[CW-16925/2022]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

and, therefore, petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.6910/2009 before the High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2015 on the ground of want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an O.A. No.477/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.05.2022. It is also contended that the petitioner was never informed about dismissal of his application seeking compassionate appointment. It is contended that in the reply to the O.A., respondent-Union of India has taken a stand that the adoption deed was not valid as the petitioner was more than 15 years old. It is also contended that O.A. was also objected on the ground that the petitioner continued to mention his biological father Suresh Sharma as his father in his school record.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India has opposed the writ petition. It is contended that the rejection order was conveyed in November, 2005 itself. It is also contended that in the board certificate, name of the petitioner’s father is mentioned as Suresh Sharma, which goes to show that the petitioner was never adopted, more particularly, when he was 5 years old. It is further contended that the petitioner has produced forged documents before the Central Administrative Tribunal. In his mark-sheets of class 6^th and 7^th , he has shown himself as son of Chhuttan Lal Sharma, whereas in the Board mark-sheet, name of Suresh Sharma is appearing as his father.

¶21

We have considered the contentions and have perused the O.A. filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

¶22

[2024:RJ-JP:36768-DB]

¶23

[CW-16925/2022]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

In the O.A., filed by the petitioner, it is mentioned that he has received copy of the order dated 08.11.2005. In the same petition, with regard to his being adopted, he has produced the mark-sheets of class 6^th and 7^th and has mentioned that his father’s name in the mark-sheet is mentioned as Chhuttan Lal Sharma. However, the respondent, in his reply to the O.A., has clearly mentioned that in the board mark-sheet of the class 8^th , father’s name of the petitioner is mentioned as Suresh Sharma. Thus, it is evident that the petitioner has produced forged document and he was nowhere shown as son of Chhuttan Lal Sharma in earlier school record and the petitioner did not go with clean hand before the Tribunal. The petitioner is son of brother of deceased. There is nothing on record to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was dependent on Chhuttan Lal Sharma.

¶26

The present case pertains to compassionate appointment and compassionate appointment is not a right of the claimant. The petitioner was conveyed about the rejection of his application seeking compassionate appointment. Thus, considering that the writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay and also considering the over all facts of the case, we are not inclined to allow the writ petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

¶27

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed.

¶28

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶29

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶30

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-17

Govind Sharma S/O Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Sharma S/O Late Shri Chhuttan Lal Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhilesh Kumar Joshi S/O Shri Triloki Nath Joshi Vs the State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Kamal Gochar S/O Dinesh Chandra Gochar

Sunder Singh Son of Late Sh. Badam Singh Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Moti Lal Koolwal S/O Late Shri Ramlal Koolwal Vs Naresh Kumar Chiraniya S/O Shri Ramswaroop Ji Chiraniya

Nishant Mathur S/O Shri B.N. Mathur, Vs Shri Likhma Ram S/O Not Known to Petitioner

M/S S.R. Glass Industries, Vs Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd.