D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) In this case the petitioner claims to be adopted son of one Munner Gupta who was working in the Irrigation Department. The laid Munner Gupta died on 22-7 1994. The petitioner claimed that he was adopted after completing due formalities under the Hindu law and performing ceremonies, rites as are necessary therefor, while he was 10 years old. The necessary deed adopting him was registered on 7-7-1994. According to the petitioner since he is adopted son has all the rights of real son, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Accordingly he had applied for the benefits under the said Rules. The respondent No 2 rejected his case on the ground that the adopted son is not eligible and entitled to the benefit of the said Rules by an order dated 24-6-1995 which is Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
(2.) Mr. R.C. Singh learned counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment of Sunil Saxena v. State of U.P., reported in 1994 FLR 283 wherein it has been held : "7. Another objection raised by the respondents about the petitioner being adopted son and not the real son of the deceased is not tenable. After adoption the petitioner is engrafted in the Family of the deceased, who was his adopted father. Under Hindu Law he gets all the rights, privileges and obligations of a son. Therefore, there is no difference between a real son and adopted son. Son would include adopted son if the adoption is valid. In the present case the adoption is not challenged as being invalid or suffering from any lacunae. Therefore, the adoption of the petitioner, which is evidenced by registered deed, cannot be said to be bad or against the provisions of Hindu Law. That being so, the petitioner is entitled to claim all the benefits like a real son. 8. The petitioner is qualified. He has completed his graduation and completed stenography course also. These facts are not denied in the counter-affidavit. Therefore, he is eligible for being appointed against Class III post under the Dying in Harness Rules of 1974 because his father has died in harness. If there is no post available in the office where the petitioner's father was working, he can be appointed any where in the available vacancy on priority basis. If no post is available the respondents are bound to create a supernumerary' post for him. I am fortified in this view by an authority of the Supreme Court Sushma Gossain v. Union of India. 9. Accordingly for the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules against class III post in their department wherever vacancy is available within a period of two months and if no vacancy is available, they are directed to create a supernumerary Class III post for him within a period of two months and appoint the petitioner against the said post within the same period. The period of two months shall commence from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the judgment before the respondents."
(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, it appears that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and justice would be better served by disposing of the same in the following manner.;