IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5021 of 2010 1. SIWANTI DEVI W/O LATE RAJENDRA SINGH R/O VILLAGE AND P.O - APHOUR, P.S -KHAIRA, DISTRICT - SARAN AT CHAPRA. 2. AMIT KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE INDRADEO SINGH AND ADOPTED S/O LATE RAJENDRA SINGH, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O - APHOUR, P.S -KHAIRA, DISTRICT - SARAN AT CHAPRA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE , BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-5 , P.O - VETERINARY COLLEGE, PATNA ----------- 2/ 15/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner No.2 is stated to be the adopted son of late Havildar Rajendra Singh who died in harness on 26.4.2009. It is jointly submitted by the wife of the deceased who is petitioner No.1 that the later was adopted as far back as 1998. The authorities have wrongly rejected the claim for compassionate appointment on the premise that an adoption done in presence of the Mukhiya was not in consonance with the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act requiring the petitioner to produce evidence of adoption in accordance with the Act. The issue need not detain the Court in view of the Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in 1994 (2) P.L.J.R. 536 (Kamal Ranjan Vs. The State of Bihar & others) holding that adoption was basically an issue of fact. The Division Bench held that in view of the - 2 - provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act an adopted son had the right to be considered for compassionate appointment. Insofar as the manner in which such a claim for compassionate appointment was to be considered stands explained in paragraph-6 as follows:- “6. I would, however, hasten to clarify that the question as to whether the person concerned is, in fact, the adopted son or daughter of his or her putative father or mother is a question of fact. Thus, whenever such claim is made it would only be expedient and proper to hold an enquiry regarding the genuineness of the claim as also whether the adoption was permissible and valid in law or not. So far as persons governed by the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act are concerned, the Act contains provisions laying down conditions of valid adoption. Section 5 of the Act prohibits adoption after commencement of the Act by or to a Hindu except in accordance with the provisions contained in that Act. It would, therefore, be trite to say that while claiming any right as the adopted child of the deceased government employee, the person must substantiate that his or her adoption was valid in law. This would, of course, require an enquiry. If proper care is not taken to scrutinize the claims, there may be a possibility of spurious claimants getting jobs and frustrating the object of compassionate appointment. The order dated 8.10.2009 is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondents to re-consider the issue of compassionate appointment in view of the directions of the Division Bench. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner - 3 - points out that he has been served with a counter affidavit. No copy of the same is available on record. The submission from Annexure-B to the counter affidavit was that he has been served with a letter dated 18.2.2010 prohibiting him from making any further correspondence in light of the former communication dated 8.10.2009. The blanket language of the order dated 18.2.2010 at Annexure-B to the counter affidavit is unfortunate and is held to be violative of the fundamental right of the petitioner to seek relief in accordance with law. The Court holds that the communication dated 18.2.2010 being contrary to Article-14 of the Constitution of India cannot be a bar for the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioner in accordance with law. Let such fresh consideration be done and decision taken within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)