IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4492 of 2007 SHASHI BHUSHAN PRASAD, son of late Shambhu Prasad, resident of village Bakharia, P.O. Belghat Baluan, P.S. Arah Muffasil, District Bhojpur … Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director General cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna 3. Addl. D.G. of Police, Military police, Bihar, Patna 4. D.I.G. of Police, B.M.P., Central Zone, Patna 5. Commandant, B.M.P.5, Patna 6. Chandrawati Devi, W/o late Shambhu Prasad, resident of village Bakharia, P.S. Arrah Muffasil, District Bhojpur at present residing in the house of Sri Bhagwan Sah, Jawahar Tola in front of Wine Bhatti, Eastern Gumti, Arrah Station, P.S. Nawadah, District Bhojpur at Arrah … Respondents ----------- 2. 4.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner seeks a direction for his appointment on compassionate ground on a plea that he was the adopted son of late Shambhu Prasad. Such plea, however, has not found favour with the authority,inasmuch as from the counter affidavit it is clear that the Commandant, B.M.P.5, Patna by his order dated 26.4.2007 had held that in absence of any valid proof of adoption of the petitioner and especially the absence of 2 a registered Deed of Adoption the petitioner cannot be held to be adopted son. While recording such finding the Commandant, B.M.P.5, Patna has also held that from the official document including the family succession certificate issued by the Anchal Adhikari, the deceased employee late Shambhu Prasad is said to have survived only by his widow, namely, Chandrawati Devi and no other son or daughter. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there are unimpeachable document including the matriculation certificate, intermediate certificate and the residential certificate to prove this aspect that in the life time of the deceased employee he had adopted the petitioner, his own nephew, as his adopted son, and therefore, the authorities should not have doubted the factum of adoption. Mr. Arora, Standing Counsel No. VI, would, however, point out that it is settled law that whenever a dispute as with regard to adoption would arise, it is only a registered document which would be giving presumption of such adoption, failing which 3 the person claiming adoption will have to seek a declaration from the civil court. He would further submit that as a matter of fact there would be no need for going into this aspect, inasmuch as the widow of late Shambhu Prasad, the deceased employee had herself filed an application seeking compassionate appointment but the same could not be disposed of on account of family dispute created by the natural father of the petitioner, who is own younger brother of the deceased employee. In this context, he points out that a criminal case was lodged in which even the widow of the deceased employee was sought to be implicated though not named in the F.I.R., to be one of the persons behind murder of the deceased employee. He would further explain that as the Government circular prohibits appointment of any person on compassionate ground facing criminal case, the case of the widow of the deceased employee, respondent no.6, could not be considered but then now the name of respondent no.6 has been expunged from the criminal case, inasmuch as the police has not found anything against 4 respondent no.6 and has not submitted charge sheet against him. From the aforementioned discussions it would be clear that while the petitioner’s claim for appointment on compassionate ground has to depend on proving his version of being adopted son of the deceased employee, the widow of such deceased employee, respondent no.6, is already eager to be appointed on compassionate ground. The Government policy classifying four categories of dependent is absolutely clear that the wife of the deceased employee will get his preference followed by son, unmarried daughter and the widow of the pre-deceased son in that seriatim respectively. Accordingly, this Court would direct the respondent authorities now to consider the case of respondent no.6 for her being appointed on compassionate ground, inasmuch as the only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner as against such consideration of her being over-age will be of no avail. The Government has got sufficient power in a suitable case 5 to even relax the minimum age limit and probably no better case can be there than the present one because the widow was denied compassionate appointment became overage on account of her being falsely implicated in a criminal case. It is made clear that in the event the respondent no.6 is not appointed and the petitioner would seek any benefit including that of compassionate ground, he will have to first file a title suit in the Civil Court for his being declared as an adopted son by impleading all the respondents herein as party to the suit and till such suit is not decreed in his favour, the widow, respondent no.6, even after her being appointed on compassionate ground will have no responsibility in maintaining the petitioner on the ground of his being adopted son. It goes without saying that if the petitioner succeeds in the civil suit and for any valid reason respondent no.6 is not appointed the State will not deny such compassionate appointment to the petitioner merely on the ground of delay. 6 With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to Mr. J.S.Arora for its immediate communication to the concerned respondents for its being implemented. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/