(Prayer: Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent be pleased to set aside orders passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 19055 of 2023 dt 18- 08-2025 and allow WP in the interest of Justice, and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to suspend the operation of the orders in WP.No. 19055/2023 dt 18-08-2025 pending disposal of the above appeal and pass such)

A. Hari Haranadha Sarma, J.

Introductory:

1. This Writ Appeal is filed questioning the order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.19055 of 2023.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed in the impugned order.

3. The writ petition was filed seeking direction to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned intimation dated 11.11.2022 of the 4th respondent, wherein request for appointment against any suitable post on compassionate grounds was rejected stating that the adoption deed dated 14.09.2018 was registered only 3 years 2 months 27 days prior to the demise (10.12.2021) of the Government employee as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to the Division Bench orders in W.P.No.12814 of 2013, dated 30.07.2013 and further direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to appoint the petitioner against any suitable post on compassionate grounds by taking into consideration of Registered Adoption dated 14.09.2018 as per the Division Bench orders in W.P.No.12814 of 2013, dated 30.07.2013 with all consequential benefits including the monitory and seniority from the date of impugned order and pass such other order and orders.

Case of the Petitioner:

4. One D. Paresh Babu, who was working as an Office Subordinate in the Respondent’s Department, is the adoptive father of the petitioner. Davala Satyanandam, S/o. William alias William Joseph and Davala Suseela, W/o.Satyanandam are his natural parents. The adoption took place in the year 2006 when the petitioner was aged about five years and that the adoption was registered on 14.09.2018 vide Document No.125 of 2018. The said D. Paresh Babu died while in service on 10.12.2021.

5. After the death of the employee, the petitioner submitted representations dated 22.04.2022 and 24.04.2022 seeking compassionate appointment. Though the petitioner’s name was entered in the Service Register as adopted son and pensionary benefits were processed, his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the adoption was not completed five years prior to the death of the employee as required under G.O.Ms.No.612, General Administration (Services-A) Department, dated 30.10.1991. Challenging the said rejection, the writ petition was filed.

Case of the Respondents:

6. Compassionate appointment is governed by G.O.Ms.No.612, dated 30.10.1991 and that, as per paragraph 2(ii) thereof, an adopted son is eligible for compassionate appointment only if the adoption had taken place legally at least five years prior to the date of death of the government employee.

7. In the present case the adoption deed was registered on 14.09.2018, whereas the employee died on 10.12.2021, and therefore the adoption period comes to only three years, two months and twenty-seven days. Hence, the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility condition.

8. Sanction of family pension and consideration for compassionate appointment are governed by different rules and that the grant of family pension to the petitioner does not confer any right to seek compassionate appointment. The respondents therefore justified the rejection of the petitioner’s claim.

Findings of the learned Single Judge:

9. The reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition are:

                  (i). The natural father is shown as shown as D. Satyanandam, S/o. D. William Joseph. They are required to be shown as practicing the Hindus religion to claim that the adoption is in terms of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

                  (ii). If the adoption is inter-religious or secular, compliance with Section 68 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 needs to be shown. Further, the adoption pleaded is prior to 2015, so the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act may not be available.

                  (iii). The entries in School records or any other social documents are not placed to show that the petitioner was shown as a son five years prior to the death of employee, on whose death compassionate appointment is sought.

                  (iv). The entries in the Service Register are subsequent to the death and are for the purpose of receiving the death benefits etc.

                  (v). The learned Single Judge has left it open to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy / declaratory relief as to the legal character of the writ petitioner as the adoptive son of D. Paresh Babu before the Civil Court.

Arguments in the Appeal:

For the appellant:

10(i). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on grounds which were not the basis of rejection in the impugned order dated 11.11.2022. The petitioner’s claim was rejected was that the adoption did not satisfy the five- year requirement under G.O.Ms.No.612 but other grounds are added during the writ proceedings.

                  (ii). The learned Single Judge erred in examining issues relating to religion, validity of adoption and consent, which were neither raised by the respondents nor formed part of the impugned order.

                  (iii). The Service Register and the grant of family pension were not properly appreciated.

                  (iv). The orders of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12814 of 2013 were erroneously ignored.

For the respondents:

11(i). Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is governed strictly by the conditions stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.612.

                  (ii). The petitioner failed to establish a legally valid adoption satisfying the requirement of five years prior to the death of the employee etc.

                  (iii). The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are based on the material on record and that no case is made out for interference in the Writ Appeal.

12. Heard Sri G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II. Perused the material available on record.

13. The points that arise for determination in this Writ Appeal are:

                  1) Whether the propriety of impugned intimation letter dated 11.11.2022 of respondent No.4, wherein the request of the writ petitioner / writ appellant for appointment to any suitable post of compassionate grounds was rejected, is properly appreciated and whether the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 18.08.2025 are sustainable or requires any interference?

                  2) What is the result of the Writ Appeal?

Point No.1:

14(i). The core objection is that the judgment in W.P.No.12814 of 2013, reported in 2013 (6) ALT 233, was not considered by the learned Single Judge.

                  (ii). It is relevant to note that, as per the facts in the case on which reliance is placed, the adoption was valid and had taken place 15 years prior to the death of the deceased and fresh consideration by the competent authority was ordered for extending the benefit of compassionate appointment.

                  (iii). In the case before this Court, the deed of adoption is not referring to the date of adoption. Nowhere in the deed there is any reference to adoption details in terms of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, whereas in the case cited it was a clear case that the adoption had taken place among Hindus and was in terms of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore reliance placed is not applicable to the present case, when the respondents are claiming that the adoption should be legal.

15. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order mentioned that no material is placed by the petitioner like school records, education certificates or any social documents, to claim that the writ petitioner is the son of the deceased D. Paresh Babu.

16. Adoption shall be five years prior to the death of employee is the rule relied on by the department for rejecting the compassionate appointment under the impugned orders.

17. The writ petitioner’s contention is that the adoption has taken place long back but the adoption deed was registered in the year 2018.

18. The recitals in the adoption deed is not referring to the date of adoption nor atleast to the formalities relating to adoption as contemplated under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.

19. If the writ petitioner claims that he is Hindu, the adoption in terms of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 should be established. If he does not claim that he is Hindu and belongs to some other religion, the adoption in terms of such other religious practices should be specified.

20. If the adoption is not in accordance with any of the religious denominations and the adoption is a secular mode, the same shall be proved. The adoptive father is shown as single.

21. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue is properly addressed by the learned Single Judge and that there are no grounds to interfere. The point framed is answered accordingly against the writ petitioner. Point No.2:

22. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek for appropriate declaratory relief before the Civil Court, as observed by the learned Single Judge, since his legal character as the adoptive son is under clouds at the instance of the respondents.

23. However, the writ petitioner / writ appellant is at liberty to resubmit his application with proper, legally valid proof indicating his legal character as the adoptive son of D. Paresh Babu, whereupon the respondents are directed to consider the same as per law within three month of such submission, without raising objections as to age, subject to qualifications, ignoring the bar of age occasioned due to delay in submission of the application on account of legal proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.