# Anurag Chand v. Director of Education (Basic) and others - **Citation:** (2004) 2 ILRA 558 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2004-07-23 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22995 of 2001 - **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anurag-chand-v-director-of-education-basic-and-others-40243 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Sri B.P. Singh S.C. U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Family-Meaning of-whether step son is covered by definition of family and is entitled to appointment under Rule?-held 'yes'. Held: Para 5 In my view, a stepson would be covered under the definition of word 'family' and would be entitled for appointment. Case law discussed: 2001 (3) ESC (All) 1283 2004 (1) ESC (All) 180 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2004 558 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.07.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22995 of 2001 Devendra Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.S. Chaudhary Sri Ansu Chaudhary Counsel for the Opposite Parties: S.C. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Claim for appointment by adopted son under Registered adoption deed-Rejection by District Magistrate and State Government-Writ against-Held, an adopted son held entitled for an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Held: Para 4 & 5 There was no difference between a real son and an adopted son and that an adopted son was entitled to all the benefits which a real son gets and was, therefore, entitled for an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness, Rules, 1974. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the order dated 14.5.2001, passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 30.5.2001, passed by the District Magistrate are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and, if it is found that he is an adopted son of the deceased, he should be given necessary appointment within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before me. Case law discussed: (1996) 1 UPLBEC 4 1994 (68) FLR 283 (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. The petitioner contends that he is the adopted son of Jai Singh. He was adopted on 10.4.1983 according to hindu customs and traditions and that the adoption deed was duly registered. His father died on 29.5.1992. By an order of the Civil Judge, dated 24.2.1993, a succession certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that upon his father's death, he applied for an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The State Government by an order dated 14.5.2001 informed the District Magistrate that an adopted son was not entitled for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. On the basis of this order the District Magistrate, respondent no.2, by his order dated 30.5.2001 rejected the petitioner's application for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The petitioner has now preferred this writ petition for quashing the orders dated 14.5.2001 and 30.5.2001 (Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ petition). 2. Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. In Singhasan Gupta vs. State of U.P. and another, (1996) 1UPLBEC 4, this Court has held that the claim of an adopted son could not be rejected on the ground that he was an adopted son and directed the authorities to consider his case for appointment if he was found to be valid. 4. In Sunil Saxena vs. State of U.P. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 2 All] Anurag Chand V. Director of Education (Basic) and others 559 and others, 1994(68) FLR 283, this Court held that there was no difference between a real son and an adopted son and that an adopted son was entitled to all the benefits which a real son gets and was, therefore, entitled for an appointment under the Dying-in-Harness, Rules, 1974. 5. In view of the aforesaid decisions, the order dated 14.5.2001, passed by the State Government as well as the order dated 30.5.2001, passed by the District Magistrate are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioner and, if it is found that he is an adopted son of the deceased, he should be given necessary appointment within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this judgment is produced before me. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2004 BEFORE THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J. Writ Petition No.36043 of 1998 Anurag Chand ...Petitioner Versus Director of Education (Basic)/Chairman, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.C. Singh Sri G.S. Singh Sri Dinesh Rai Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.P. Singh S.C. U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Family-Meaning of-whether step son is covered by definition of family and is entitled to appointment under Rule?-held 'yes'. Held: Para 5 In my view, a stepson would be covered under the definition of word 'family' and would be entitled for appointment. Case law discussed: 2001 (3) ESC (All) 1283 2004 (1) ESC (All) 180 (Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.) 1. The petitioner's step mother, Smt. Geeta Kushwaha died in harness on 28.8.1997. As a step son, the petitioner applied for his appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The application of the petitioner was also accompanied by a succession certificate issued by the Tehsildar. Subsequently, the respondents issued an appointment letter dated 4.5.1998 appointing the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in Prathmic Vidyalaya Phulwariya, Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi. On the basis of the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner joined the school as an Assistant Teacher and worked till 3.6.98, on which date respondent No.2, namely, District Basic Education Officer, Varanasi cancelled the appointment order dated 2.5.1998 by the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner is not a uterine son of the deceased and was, therefore, not entitled for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The impugned order dated 3.6.1998 has been assailed in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri Dinesh Rai, the learned