Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish Kumar Shrivastava vs Western Coal Fields Ltd on 11 October, 2010
                           W.A. No.1019/2010

       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