- (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the decision dated 03.01.2012 issued vide Memo No. 16(A) by the respondent no. 2 whereby and whereunder, the request for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected. A further prayer has been made by the petitioner for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father late Madhusudan Kumar who died on harness on 15.09.2003 while working as a Messenger in the office of the respondent no. 4. The case of the petitioner is that one Madhusudan Kumar was posted as a Messenger in the office of the Sub -divisional Animal Husbandry Officer, Ghatsila in the district of Singhbhum East where he died on harness on 15.09.2003. The petitioner claims himself to be an adopted son of late Madhusudan Kumar as he was adopted on 10.01.1995 in accordance with the custom and usages prevalent between the parties. In terms of the Circular dated 24.01.2008 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, wherein an adopted son was entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground, the petitioner made an application in the prescribed format on 19.02.2008. The said application was duly forwarded by the respondent no. 4 to the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Singhbhum East on 27.05.2008. Pursuant to the application for compassionate appointment the Deputy Collector (Establishment) Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur vide letter no. 720 dated 25.06.2008 requested the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur to submit a detailed enquiry report as per circular dated 24.01.2008. The petitioner was communicated by the department to get the adoption deed dated 10th January, 1995 registered and pursuant to such directive the mother of the petitioner had got the deed of adoption registered on 27th January, 2009. A detailed enquiry was conducted and the report was submitted by the respondent no. 4 vide letter No. 41 dated 04.02.2011 wherein it was stated that the petitioner was entitled for compassionate appointment. An opinion was also sought for from the Government Pleader of Jamshedpur who had opined in favour of the petitioner. However, the District Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting dated 03.01.2012 rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the adoption was not in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee dated 03.01.2012, the petitioner has preferred the present writ application.
(2.) Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Abhijit Kumar Singh, learned J. C. to G.P. - V. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was duly adopted by late Madhusudan Kumar on 10th January, 1995 and subsequently the deed of adoption was got registered in terms of the direction issued by the Department. It has been submitted that since the petitioner is the adopted son of late Madhusudan Kumar and the enquiry had also supported the said fact and since an adopted son is entitled to compassionate appointment in view of the circular dated 24.01.2008 the petitioner was eligible to be considered for such appointment.
(3.) Learned counsel further submits that at the instance of the respondents the deed of adoption got registered and, therefore, it was absolutely illegal and arbitrary on the part of the respondents to reject the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner on the ground that the deed of adoption was prepared after fourteen years from the date when the actual adoption had taken place. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the finding in the impugned minutes of meeting dated 03.01.2012 is contrary to the enquiry report as well as against the opinion which had been given by the Government Pleader and, therefore, the decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee taken on 03.01.2012 deserves to be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh.;