RANJEET KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims compassionate appointment after the death of Smt. Urmila Devi working on the post of Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife, contending that he is her adopted son, but the said claim has been rejected by Chief Medical Officer, Mirzapur by means of impugned order dated 25.7.2013 stating that petitioner did not produce any document to show that he is adopted son of deceased employee. Learned counsel for petitioner during the course of argument admitted that there does not appear to be executed any adoption deed and also could not show as to how and in what manner the adoption took place in accordance with procedure of adoption prescribed in Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1956").

(2.) SECTION 16 of Act, 1956, as it originally was, reads as under:

(3.) PETITIONER has shown his age 24 years at the time of filing this writ petition and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, his adoption could have taken place before 1.1.1977. Therefore, in view of above requirement of law and considering the fact that even before this Court, no document has been placed to establish the claim of petitioner with respect to his alleged adoption by the deceased employee, and, on the contrary, learned counsel for petitioner admits there does not appear to be executed any registered adoption deed, I do not find any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the order impugned in this writ petition warranting interference.