IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 13976/2008 Decided on:24.2.2011 _____________________________________________ Vinod Kumar. …Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Ms. Aruna Sharma, Advocate vice Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. with Mr. R.P. Singh, Asstt. A.G. _____________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that petitioner claims himself to be adopted son of Radha Devi, who was working in Health Department. She submitted application seeking retirement on medical ground vide Annexure A-1 dated 9.3.1999. She was retired on medical ground in the forenoon of 11.3.1999, as per Annexure A-2. Petitioner submitted his application for appointment on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 compassionate basis to the post of Clerk. Case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Block Medical Officer to the Chief Medical Officer. Date of birth of the petitioner is 1.6.1973 and as per Annexures A-10 and A-11, he was adopted at the age of six months. 2. Ms. Aruna Sharma has strenuously argued that her client is entitled to get appointment on compassionate basis, being adopted son of Smt. Radha Devi. 3. Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously argued that the petitioner was never adopted, as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and thus, he is not entitled to seek appointment on compassionate basis. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. 5. The question whether adopted son could be appointed on compassionate basis can only be seen, if the adoption has been proved as per the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In the instant case, petitioner claims himself to be adopted by Smt. Radha Devi at the age of six months. His date of birth is 1.6.1973. However, adoption deed, i.e. Annexure A-10 has been prepared on 11.3.1997. Document Annexure A-11 is dated 3 11.8.2000. Petitioner has also relied upon Annexure A-11 dated 11.8.2000. In this case, petitioner has failed to prove that he was adopted by Smt. Radha Devi. The entire exercise has been undertaken by the petitioner to seek public appointment. In case, the petitioner had been adopted in the year 1973, the adoption deed ought to have been prepared in that year only. There are mandatory provisions whereby codal formalities are required to be gone into as per the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Since the petitioner has failed to prove that he was formally adopted by Smt. Radha Devi, he cannot seek public appointment on compassionate basis. The question whether the adopted son can be appointed by way of compassionate appointment or not is not required to be gone into in view of the observations made hereinabove. 6. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 24.2.2011 *awasthi*