Rajasthan High Court Declines Compassionate Appointment To Son Adopted After Crossing 15 Yrs Age Threshold Under Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the plea for compassionate appointment moved by the adopted son of a government servant, citing non-compliance of the provisions for adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.Petitioner was adopted at the age of 18 years. Section 10(iv) HAMA prescribes that a person who has completed the age of fifteen years cannot be given in...
The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed the plea for compassionate appointment moved by the adopted son of a government servant, citing non-compliance of the provisions for adoption under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Petitioner was adopted at the age of 18 years. Section 10(iv) HAMA prescribes that a person who has completed the age of fifteen years cannot be given in adoption unless custom applies.
A bench of Justice Arun Monga said the presumption under Section 16 of the Act in favour of registered adoption deed will be of no avail to the petitioner since the provision has to be read in harmony with Section 10.
"No doubt, under Section 16, presumption has been envisaged in favour of the biological parents but the said presumption has to be in compliance with the requirement of Section 10(iv) ibid. In the present case, it is borne out from the certificate of the petitioner (Annex.1) that he was aged 18 years at the time of his adoption on 13.12.2013. It is not even the case of the petitioner that there is certain special custom, which permits adoption of a child regardless of his age..." the bench observed.
Pursuant to the death of his father who was working as a teacher Grade III, the petitioner had submitted application for compassionate appointment along with the adoption deed. The application was rejected by the respondent department alleging that the adoption deed was illegal and further the adoption itself was illegal as per Section 10(iv) of the Act.
Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Mohan Singh Bhati v the State of Rajasthan & Ors. where compassionate appointment was denied by the authority since adoption was not in terms of the Act but the Court highlighted the presumption under Section 16 and rejected the argument of the adoption being illegal.
After hearing the arguments, the Court said the judgment of Mohan Singh Bhati is per in-curium in light of a division bench judgment in Kumari Vinita Sharma v Union of India where one of the reasons to reject the plea for compassionate appointment was Section 10(iv) of the Act. Since the petitioner was 25 years of age at the time of adoption, irrespective of the presumption under Section 16, no compassionate appointment was granted in the case.
In this backdrop, the High Court dismissed the plea.
Title: Narendra Singh v State of Rajasthan, Department of Secondary Education and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 106