STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. versus DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 05-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 7 S.C.R. 1016 
A 
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. 
• 
V. 
1. 
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR 
Civil Appeal No. 3242 of 2009 
-
8 
MAY 5, 2009 
[S. B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Compassionate appointment - Claim for 
- By nephew of deceased employee - On the ground that he 
was his adopted son - Denied by Joint Director- Later granted 
c by Dep'Uty Director - However, appointment order cancelled 
- Cancellation upheld by State Administrative Tribunal - In 
writ petition High Court holding that the claim was supported 
by Adoption Deed and Succession Certificate - On appeal, 
held: Claimant was ineligible for grant of compassionate 
D appointment - Such appointment being an exception to 
constitutional scheme of equality, cannot be granted in routine 
,. 
manner - Claimant not able to discharge the burden to prove 
l 
his status as adopted son - Deed of adoption not being 
registered, did not carry with it presumption ul/s. 16 of Hindu 
E Adoption and Maintenance Act - Claimant was only an heir 
or legal representative of deceasecJ. employee - Claimant 
having obtained appointment, concealing the facts of its earlier 
rejection by higher authority, committed fraud on the 
Department as well as on Constitution -
Therefore, for 
F cancellation, principles of natural justice were not required to 
be complied with - Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106 - Hindu 
Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 - s. 16 - Constitution of 
India, 1950 - Articles 14 and 16 - Doctrines/Principles -
Principle of natural justice - Audi a/terem partem. 
G 
After death of 'C' (A head master of a government 
school), respondent (his nephew) and respondent's father 
+ 
were granted succession certificate. The deceased 
employee was unmarried and had not made any nomina-
tion with regard to his provident fund and other dues. 
H 
1016 
STATE OF CHHATISGARH & ORS. V. 
1017 
DHIRJO KUMAR SENGAR 
• 
Respondent fifed an application for his appointment A 
~ 
on compassionate ground on the basis that he was the 
adopted son of the deceased employee. The application 
-
was rejected by the Joint Director (Education). Thereafter, 
by order of Depute Director (Education), he was appointed 
on compassionate ground. However, the said. offer of 8 
appointment was later cancelled. 
Respondent filed original application before State 
. 
~ 
Administrative Tribunal questioning the cancellation order 
J 
contending inter alia that the order was passed without 
hearing him and thus, was voilative of principles of natural c 
justice. The application was dismissed. Writ petition there-
against was allowed by High Court holding that his case 
was supported by Deed of Adoption as well as Succession 
Certificate. Hence the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the court 
D 
• 
HELD: 1.1 The deceased employee was the Head 
_, 
Master of a Government School. He did not file any 
nomination in respect of his statutory dues. As he was 
unmarried, his brother and the respondent were his 
natural heirs. Application for grant of succession E 
certificate was not filed by the respondent alone. It was 
filed jointly by him and his father. Had the respondent been 
his adopted son, he would have claimed a succession 
-( 
certificate only on that basis. His natural father could not 
have been arrayed as an applicant. No joint succession 
F 
certificate, thus, could have been applied for and granted. 
In the application for grant of the Succession Certificate, 
the respondent did not make any averment that he was 
~ 
adopted by the deceased employee. [Paras 3 and 12] 
[1021-F; 1024-G-H; 1025-A] 
G 
_}-
1.2 A succession certificate can be granted in favour 
of any person. It may be granted to an heir or a nominee. 
By reason of grant of such certificate, a person in whose 
favour succession certificate is granted becomes a 
trustee to distribute the amount payable to the deceased H 
1018 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A to his heirs and legal representatives. He does not derive 
• 
.. 
any right thereunder. The succession certificate merely 
enabled him to collect the dues of the deceased. No status 
was conferred on him thereby. It did not prove any 
relationship between the deceased and the applicant. 
B Even otherwise, the respondent and his father were 
entitled to the said dues being his heirs and legal 
representatives. [Para 23] [1029-G-H; 103.0-A-B] 
1.3 In the marksheet of the High School Examination 
,._ 
of the respondent name of his natural father was shown.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.