- (1.) Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and upon perusing the papers before us it appears that the appellant (being the writ petitioner) is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10th December, 2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ -A No.-11012 of 2019 (Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. through the Secretary Panchayat Raj/ Local Bodies, Lucknow and two others).
(2.) For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set out hereinbelow in its entirety:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents. Petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment consequent upon death of his mother has been rejected by the District Panchayat Adhikari, Saharanpur vide order impugned dated 17.01.2019. This order records that petitioner was taken in adoption by the deceased employee on 07.12.2007. The date of birth of petitioner is 12.09.1991. It has therefore been observed that petitioner was above 15 years of age on the date when he is said to have taken in adoption. The order impugned refers to the provisions contained in The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which clearly provides that one of the valid condition for adoption is that the adopted child should not be over 15 years of age. The adoption, therefore, has not been found to be valid and consequently his claim has been rejected. Section 5 of The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides that adoption shall be made after commencement of the Act, 1956 only in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act or else adoption would be rendered void. Section 10(4) of the Act provides that no person shall be capable and being taken for adoption if he has completed 15 years of age. Although various arguments are advanced on behalf of the petitioner but the facts recorded in the order are not disputed. For a adoption to remain valid as per the 1956 Act, the adopted child must be below 15 years of age on the date of adoption. Since the petitioner was above 15 years of age as such the adoption itself was contrary to the Act of 1956. Authorities, therefore, have committed no error in ignoring petitioner's claim on the ground that the adoption itself is not valid and the petitioner is not treated to the son for the purpose of consideration of his claim under the Uttar Pradesh Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The order impugned, therefore, requires no interference by this Court. Writ petition, accordingly, is dismissed."
(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order reveals that the learned Single Judge, while considering the appellant/writ petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment consequent upon the death of his mother, took into consideration the fact that such claim was rejected by the District Panchayat Adhikari at Saharanpur, since it was found that his adoption was not valid and consequently his claim has been rejected. The learned Single Judge has also taken into consideration the relevant provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and took note of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner was above fifteen years of age on the date when he is said to have been taken in adoption while referring to section 10 (iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which provides that no person shall be capable of being taken in adoption if he has completed 15 years of age.;