HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 12480 of 2019 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 04.04.2019 whereby termination of services as a Class IV employee earlier on the ground that he did not come within definition of an adopted son of the deceased employee, has been reiterated. 3. It has been submitted that Late Naumi Lal who was in employment with opposite parties passed away in service on 10.10.1998 on the post of Guard whereafter petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 was rejected vide order dated 01.06.2004 by the Executive Engineer concerned. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.3238 (S/S) of 2004, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 but Special Appeal No.236 of 2014 was thereafter allowed by means of judgment and order dated 05.05.2014. The matter was remanded for consideration afresh by the learned Single Judge Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ruby Singh, Ashok Kumar Yadava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sanjay Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow And Anr. .....Respondent(s) and in terms thereof, the said writ petition was thereafter allowed by means of judgment and order dated 25.08.2014. 4. It is submitted that when no consequential action was taken by opposite parties pertaining to continance in service of petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No.5187 (SS) of 2019 which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2019 directing the authorities concerned to consider and decide petitioner's claim. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's claim primarily on the ground that his adoption deed being unregistered, could not have been a ground for providing compassionate appointment. 5. It is submitted that once the aforesaid aspect has already been considered and rejected not only in Special Appeal No.236 of 2014 but subsequently as well by means of judgment and order dated 25.08.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.3238 (SS) of 2004, the rejection by means of impugned order is contrary to finding recorded by this Court earlier. 6. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner had filed the application for compassionate appointment on the basis of adoption deed which was not in consonance with the U.P. Civil Law (Amendment) Act, 1976 whereby it was mandatory to register adoption-deed in case of its execution after 01.01.1977. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that earlier petitioner WRIA No. 12480 of 2019 2 had been granted compassionate appointment on a Class IV post but the same was thereafter cancelled vide orders dated 23.02.2004 and 01.06.2004 primarily on the ground that the adoption deed was not in consonance with the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and the Amendment Act of 1977. It is also apparent that the Writ Petition No.3238 (SS) of 2004 was also dismissed on the same ground by means of judgment and order dated 31.03.2014 but Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.236 of 2014 has clearly refuted the aforesaid aspect in the following manner: “Accordingly, the sole ground, on which the appellant-petitioner's appointment has been cancelled, seem to require consideration on merit. Learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition by impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2014, has not considered the proposition of law raised by the appellant- petitioner, which seems to be on record. It shall be appropriate that this court should record finding with regard to the effect of the U.P. Amendment as well as the affect of judgment and decree of the Civil Court by which succession certificate has been issued and appellant- petitioner has been provided post retiral dues of the deceased government employee late Naumilal. Once the government has accepted the succession certificate and does not disputed it and provided retiral dues to appellant-petitioner, then prima- facie the government has no right to deny the appointment on compassionate ground under dying in harness rules, merely on the ground that the adoption deed was not registered one. U.P. Amendment provides that additional evidence under the Indian Evidence Act shall be admissible to WRIA No. 12480 of 2019 3 defend any unregistered adoption deed. In view of above, we allow the present appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31.3.2014 passed by learned Single Judge and restore the Writ Petition 3228 (S/S) of 2004 to its original number and remit back to learned Single Judge to take afresh decision keeping in view the pleadings on record as well as the observations made hereinabove. Since affidavits between the parties have already been exchanged, it shall be appropriate that the writ petition, which is pending in this court last 10 years, be listed before appropriate regular bench and decided afresh expeditiously in accordance to law. Registry shall list the writ petition regularly till its final hearing by learned Single Judge on merit. Let the writ petition be listed in the 3rd week of May, 2014 before appropriate regular bench. “ 8. Upon remand, the writ petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 25.08.2014 in the following terms: "A bare perusal of the order impugned shows that the petitioner was extended the appointment on compassionate ground subject to production of registered-deed of adoption within fifteen days. The petitioner failed to produce the same within the period stipulated therefor, therefore, the respondents cancelled his appointment whereas I am of the view that once the petitioner has been extended the benefit of the post retiral dues on the basis of succession certificate issued by the court of competent jurisdiction, there is no occasion for the authorities for not recognizing WRIA No. 12480 of 2019 4 him as adopted son. Once the petitioner is declared as an adopted son, he stands on the status of son and becomes entitled to get all the benefit accrued to him as a son. In the light of aforesaid fact, I am of the view that the authority concerned has failed to appreciate the correct fact and law and has passed the order impugned. Since the order impugned suffers from error of law, it is hereby quashed. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. " 9. It is evident and admitted between the parties that the aforesaid judgments have attained finality with no challenge thereto. 10. In pursuance of directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.5187 (SS) of 2019, the impugned order has thereafter been passed again reiterating rejection of petitioner’s claim on the ground that his adoption deed was not in consonance with law. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, once Division Bench of this Court has already adjudicated upon the aforesaid aspect particularly upholding petitioner's compassionate appointment on the basis of Succession Certificate, the impugned order is clearly in the teeth of findings recorded by Division Bench of this Court. 12. It is also evident that the impugned order does not take into account the aspect of petitioner having been granted compassionate appointment earlier on the basis of his Succession Certificate. WRIA No. 12480 of 2019 5 13. In view of discussion made here-in-above, the impugned order dated 04.04.2019 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to reinstate petitioner in service on the post he was holding prior to passing of the impugned order dated 04.04.2019. 14. In view of the fact that the impugned order is clearly contrary to direction issued by Division Bench of this Court and in view of Principles of Restitution, opposite parties are directed to pay 50% of the salary of the post of petitioner with effect from 04.04.2019 till date. 15. The aforesaid payment, reinstatement of petitioner in service as well as compliance of this order shall be ensured within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority. In case of failure to provide the benefits of restitution within the aforesaid time frame, opposite parties shall also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the petitioner from 04.04.2019 till the date of actual payment. 16. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 10, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 12480 of 2019 6 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench