D.K. Seth, J. - (1.) The petitioner claimed under Dying-in-harness category on account of death of his adoptive mother, who was in employment of the respondent employer. Since employment was not given, the petitioner moved a Writ Petition, being W.P. No. 14217 (W) of 1998 disposed of on 2nd April, 2001. This Court, while disposing of the same, directed the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner. By an order dated 17th September, 2001, the petitioner's case was rejected on the ground that he was not validly adopted. It is this order, which is under challenge.
(2.) Mr. Abhijit Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, points out that the respondent authorities are not competent to declare an adoption invalid, until and unless there is a declaration by a Court. Such lis is available between the members of the family and not to a third party. A third party cannot question the validity of an adoption. Many other points were also raised, which is not necessary to be gone into in this case.
(3.) Mr. Aloke Banerjee, learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that if on the face of it, it appears that the adoption was not validly made, it is open to the respondents to take note of it. In fact, a special privilege is being sought for on the strength of such adoption. The adoption is the qualification, under which the privilege is being claimed. If the foundation of claiming privilege falls through, he cannot claim such privilege. Therefore, the basis of the claim can be gone into. He points out that under Section 10 and Section 11 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act), certain provisions are required to be complied for a valid adoption. In the present case, on the face of it, and even on the admission of the petitioner himself, as pointed out by him, the said provisions were infracted. Therefore, it was open to the respondents to deny employment, on the basis of which it was so claimed.;