Shri Devesh Bhojne, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Greeshm Jain, learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice.
Heard on I.A. No.11783/2010, an application for condonation of delay in filing the writ appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, we find that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Prayer is allowed.
The I.A. No.11783/2010 is allowed.
Heard on the question as well as on merits.
This intracourt appeal has been preferred against the order dated 2262010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.4275/2006(s) by the appellant which has been dismissed.
The facts giving rise to filing of the instant appeal are that the appellant had moved an application for his appointment on compassionate ground on the base that his adoptive mother, Smt. Shantibai died in harness, therefore, he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate basis. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents the appellant preferred the writ petition before the learned Single Judge who dismissed the same holding, inter alia, that the adoption was contrary to Section 11(i) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, therefore, he is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the name of the appellant is mentioned in the service record of the deceasedemployee and, therefore, he is entitled to claim appointment on compassionate basis.
We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
From a perusal the facts pleaded in the appeal and the materials brought on record, it is graphically clear that the adoption of the appellant is in contravention of the provisions contained in Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
We, therefore, do not find any ground to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal, deserves to and hereby dismissed.
(S.R.Alam) (Alok Aradhe) Chief Justice Judge ac.