IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.7568 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 09, 2010 Bodh Raj …Petitioner. Versus: State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the petitioner: Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Advocate For the respondents : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral). . Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “i). That the orders dated 24.10.2000 and 24.11.2000 vide Annexures A-14 and A-15, rejecting the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds, may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii). That the respondents may be directed to consider and appoint the applicant as a Forest Guard, on compassionate grounds, for which post, the applicant is eligible as per the R&P Rules for the post of Forest Guard in view of the submissions in paras 6(xiii), (xiv) and grounds (c) to (e) of the OA, forthwith. iii) Alternatively, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The respondents may be directed to consider and appoint as a Clerk/Class-III post or alternatively as a Class- IV employee for which the applicant is eligible being matriculate, as per the policy and the Rules, in case the appointment as Forest Guard, is legally not permissible forthwith. iv) That the respondents may be directed to give the appointment as Forest Guard or as a Clerk or alternatively as a Class-IV employee with all consequential benefits like seniority and arrears of salary from the date of illegal rejections on 24.10.2000 vide Annexure A-14 forthwith. v) That the cost of the application be granted.” 2. Sh. Madho Ram was working as a Forest Worker with the respondents. Unfortunately while in service he expired on 5.5.1999. Prior to his death petitioner Bodh Raj was adopted by him. Consequently as the adopted son of Madho Ram, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of policy dated 18.1.1990 (Annexure A- 7). Petitioner’s request was turned down vide orders dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure A-14).and 24.11.2000 (Annexure A-15) for the reason that he was not ‘the son’ of the deceased employee. This is also the stand taken by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. 3. The relevant extract of the policy dated 18.1.1990 reads as under: “2. To whom the policy is applicable. The employment assistance on compassionate grounds will be allowed in order of priority only to widow or son or unmarried daughter (in case of unmarried Govt. servant to father, mother, brother and unmarried sister) of: (a) xxxxxxxxxx. 3 (b) A daily wage employee who dies while in service after having rendered atleast 5 years service with not less than 240 days on daily wage basis in a year (to be computed as an average of the number of days served in the preceding three years) leaving his family in immediate need of assistance. In such cases compassionate employment would be on daily wages only.” 4. There is no dispute that otherwise the deceased employee/ petitioner fulfills the criteria provided for under the policy. The only question which needs to be considered is as to whether an adopted son would fall within the ambit and scope of the policy. 5. Petitioner has placed on record deed of adoption dated 28.11.1998 (Annexure A-1). His name also stands reflected in the legal heirs certificate of deceased Madho Ram issued by the respondents authorities themselves. 6. Upon adoption petitioner has acquired status of son of Sh. Madho Ram. This would be in consonance with the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Section 3 Sub Section (57) of the General Clauses Act from which it is evident that the word ‘son’ would include ‘an adopted son’. 7. It is not the case of the respondents that an adopted son has been specifically excluded from the definition of the ‘son’ under the policy. Consequently stand taken by the respondents is untenable in law. 8. Petition needs to be allowed. Impugned orders dated 24.10.2000 (Annexure A-14).and 24.11.2000 (Annexure A-15) are quashed. Respondents are directed to process the petitioner’s application (Annexure A-9) in accordance with law. Respondents shall take action by relaxing the 4 restriction of age, if any. Needful be positively done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. November 09, 2010 (rana)