1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3484/05 Surendra Kumar vs. Ajmer Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Date of order : 20/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Yogendra Singh for the petitioner. ****** This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Surendra Kumar challenging the order of the respondents dated 10.01.2007 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to provide him appointment on compassionate grounds. It is claimed that the petitioner is adopted son of Jawahar Mal Sharma who was unmarried and died while serving the respondents on 3.2.1997. The petitioner was sole dependent of Jawahar Mal Sharma as he has taken him in adoption as per hindu rites and customs during his life time on 14.1.1980. Subsequently, the adoption deed was got registered during the life time of Jawahar Mal Sharma on 6.3.1995. Initially when the petitioner approached the respondents, the dispute arose as to his entitlement in view of the fact that one more person by the name of Basant Kumar claimed to be adopted son of 2 deceased Jawahar Mal Sharma and also applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner was therefore advised to obtain the succession certificate and accordingly he applied in the Court of Sessions at Jhunjhunu which has by its order dated 28.11.2003 granted the succession certificate. Shri Yogendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the department has now illegally rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his adoption was not valid in view of provisions of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Learned counsel submitted that the Assistant Engineer, Pilani forwarded the case of the petitioner to Executive Engineer (Distribution), Chirawa dated 19.1.2004. This clearly proves that delay occurred in obtaining the succession certificate which was required to be procured because of the contesting claims. The respondents therefore ought to be directed to grant him compassionate appointment. The respondents contested the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner was major and married at the time of registration of the adoption deed on 6.3.1995. His adoption was not valid as per Section 10(iii) of the Hindu 3 Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The adoption has been registered and shown to have been made only with a view to procuring compassionate appointment. It is contended that even according to Section 10(iv), the adoption could not be made because at the time when it was registered the petitioner was more than 22 years of age whereas the maximum age according to section 10(iv) would be only 15 years. Reference was made to the definition of the `dependent' in Rule 2(c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 to argue that only such person who is validly adopted by the Government servant during his life time can be considered as `dependent' in the meaning of aforesaid provision and that the succession certificate on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming the compassionate appointment does not satisfy the requirements of the rules. It is argued that succession certificate merely entitles the petitioner to receive the terminal dues of the deceased employee and nothing has been said about it that such payment has otherwise been denied by the respondents. Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the material forming 4 part of the record, I find that Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 provides that `dependent' means a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter who has been legally adopted by the deceased government servant during his life time and who at the time of death were solely dependent on him. Apart from the fact that there were two claimants the succession certificate prepared on record indicates that the court held the petitioner entitled to receive the benefit of gratuity, provided fund, DLI and other terminal dues of the deceased government servant. The question also arises as to what would be the reason of this delay which is taken from the date of death of deceased government employee Jawahar Mal Sharma on 3.2.1997 and when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after the aforesaid certificate on 8.12.2003. The death has taken place in 1997 and succession certificate itself was issued on 28.11.2003 and application thereafter was made by the petitioner to the respondent on 8.12.2003. The respondents have raised various grounds questioning correctness of adoption as there has been no determination of the fact whether the so called adoption made in 1980 was valid and whether a mere adoption 5 deed registered 15 years thereafter in 1995 would dis-entitle them to hold the view that the adoption of the petitioner who was major and married when this deed was registered. In totality of circumstances, therefore, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for grant of a mandamus requiring the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment both on merits as also on the ground of delay. This writ petition therefore being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. RS (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.