1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4112/2004. : : Smt.Asha Devi Pareek & Anr. Vs. Managing Director, JVVNL, Jaipur & Ors. : : Date of Order 2.12.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.D.K.Bhardwaj for the petitioners. Ms.Ashish Joshi for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the action of the respondents refusing to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2 on account of death of his father Shri Lallu Lal Pareek while he was in service. The petitioner No.2 was adopted by Shri Lallu Lal Pareek. Shri D.K.Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondents have refused to appoint the petitioner on illegal ground because formal adoption took place on 28.1.1993 and according to the custom. There was no requirement in the custom to get the adoption registered. Shri Lallu Lal Pareek has been appointed on the post of 2 Helper Grade-I and died on 3.7.2003. A formal adoption deed was executed on 28.7.2003 because the respondents required the petitioner to produce the adoption deed for the purpose of appointment. The petitioner No.1, who is widow of Late Shri Lallu Lal Pareek submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner No.2 supported by an affidavit, in which she has stated that she was ready and willing to get the petitioner No.2 appointed and he should be given compassionate appointment. Learned counsel relied on ration card and condolence message published in newspaper showing that petitioner No.1 was adopted by the deceased as his adopted son. It is contended that petitioner has also procured the succession certificate from the Court. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mst.Vishni & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2005 (2) WLC Page 134 and argued that this Court considered the case of the adopted son of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the basis of succession certificate. It is therefore prayed that the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Ms.Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and argued that in the 3 present case, the adoption deed has been got registered on 28.7.2003, 25 days after the death of deceased Late Shri Lallu Lal Pareek, who expired on 3.7.2003. The petitioner No.2 was not a legally adopted son of the deceased Government servant when he died. The instructions issued by the Rajasthan State Electricity Board and the relevant rules of the said Board are that cases for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of adoption have to be considered only if it is shown that a legal adoption of son or daughter has taken place during the life time of government servant. Learned counsel argued that in the present case adoption is shown to have been made only with a view to claiming compassionate appointment. It is argued that even ration card, which the petitioner has been procured subsequent to death of the deceased on 14.8.2003. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not adopted in the year 1993 because as per educational certificate, which the petitioner produced claiming appointment, indicates his actual father Shri Mahesh Kumar Pareek upto the year 2001. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that adoption deed was registered after the death of deceased employee is not in dispute. It is disputed question of fact 4 whether the petitioner No.2 was taken on adoption during life time of the deceased employee. Succession certificate by itself is not determinative of the fact that the petitioner was validly adopted. In the case cited by learned counsel for the petitioner in Mst.Vishni (supra) it is not clear whether adoption deed was registered prior to death of employee or whether at all there was any adoption deed. The suggestion of the respondents that the adoption deed in this case was produced only with a view to claiming compassionate appointment, based on facts, needs to be determined as a question of fact and this contentions issue cannot be gone into and decided by this Court. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.63.