The Madras High Court clarified that unless and until the deceased Government servant could have obtained an order under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, appointing her as Guardian of the Ward (petitioner herein), the petitioner, merely based on the adoption deed, cannot claim himself to have been taken in adoption for him to be recognised as an adopted son.
The Court therefore held that the adopted son of the deceased Government servant, by way of a registered deed of adoption, could not claim entitlement to monetary benefits of the deceased employee as well as an appointment on compassionate grounds.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice T. Vinod Kumar observed from a perusal of the adoption deed, based on which the petitioner had claimed monetary benefit and also an appointment on compassionate grounds, that while the deceased Government Servant is aged about 28 years on the date of execution of the said deed, the petitioner, who is taken in adoption is aged about 17 years.
The Bench noted that the age difference between the petitioner and the deceased Government Servant is about 11 years, and the petitioner was a minor on the date of adoption. Since the petitioner, as well as the deceased Government employee who is stated to have taken the petitioner in adoption, professes Christianity, and since there are no specific adoption laws for Christians and Muslims at the relevant point of time, the adoption would be governed by the provisions of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.
Reference was made to the said 1890 Act, to explain that the deceased employee could have only fostered the petitioner as Guardian by obtaining necessary orders from the Competent Court. Since, admittedly, no such order was obtained, whereby the deceased Government servant was appointed to act as Guardian, the petitioner, as adopted son, could not claim any benefits as such.
Briefly, the petitioner, who was adopted by his maternal aunt, claimed to have performed the final rites after she had deceased, like her own son, and contended that his adopted mother had nominated him for receiving the TNCPSP fund cum Gratuity scheme and to receive terminal benefits from the Government.
The petitioner, therefore, approached the High Court and alleged that despite her adopted mother mentioning his name alone as the son in the family detail particulars submitted under Rule 54(12) in Form 3 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the respondents did not disburse the death benefits due to his adopted mother, for her service at the Office of Administrative Officer, Chief Inspector of Factories, Chennai.
Appearances:
Advocate V.P. Rajendran, for the Appellant
Advocates V. Yamuna Devi and K. Venkatesan, for the Respondent
