Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2975-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11369 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vishwajeet Tiwari Respondent :- U. O. N. Thru. Secy. Min. Of Home Affairs And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Kushal Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate holding brief for Shri Ram Kushal Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anil Kumar Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to be dependent of a freedom fighter and seeks a certificate to that effect. This request has been rejected by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue), Sultanpur referring to a Government Order dated 12.09.2022 according to which, the State Government has provided guidance to the concerned officials regarding issuance of such certificate which as per the said Government Order has to be issued to the dependent as defined in the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1993') and according to the impugned order dated 26.10.2024, the definition of 'Son' contained in Section 2(B)(1) does not mention an adopted son, such as the petitioner. The petitioner claims to have a registered adoption deed by which he was adopted by the alleged freedom fighter, the adoptee father, Shiv Harakh. Apparently, the reasoning given is not sustainable in law because the definition of son as contained in the Act, 1993 is as under:- "(b) "dependent" with reference to a freedom fighter means,-- (i) son and daughter (married or unmarried), (ii) grandson (son of a son) and unmarried grand daughter (daughter of a son), of the freedom-fighter." It does not specifically exclude an adopted son. It only mentions son or daughter (married or unmarried). In this eventuality, Section 4(42) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1904') comes into play, as, the Act, 1993 is state enactment and according to the said provision of the Act, 1904, "son in the case of any one, the law applicable to him, permits adoption, shall include an adopted son". Now, the adoption is permissible under the personal law applicable to Hindus. It has not been mentioned in the impugned order that it is impermissible under the personal law. In view of this, the impugned order has been passed without taking into consideration Section 4(42) of the Act, 1904, therefore, it is liable to be quashed. It is accordingly quashed. The A.D.M. (Finance & Revenue), Sultanpur shall now reconsider the application of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid expeditiously, say within three weeks. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. We have not at all adjudicated the validity of the adoption or the registered deed of adoption. We have only decided the validity of the order impugned. Shri Anil Kumar Chaubey, learned Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the concerned for compliance. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Lokesh Kumar [Brij Raj Singh, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.] Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench