IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1306 of 2008 Ranjeet Paswan, son of late Tildhari Paswan, resident of Village Mauna Mahima, P.S. Vaishali (Belsar O.P.), District Vaishali. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Home (Police), Deptt. Bihar, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Home (Police) Deptt, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Collector, District Vaishali. 4. The Deputy Collector in charge, District Vaishali. 5. The Superintendent of Police, District Vaishali. 6. The Anchal Adhikari, Vaishali, District Vaishali. 7. The Officer in charge, P.S. Vaishali (Belsar O.P.), District Vaishali. ----------- Respondents ----------- 2 18.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 4.4.2007 as contained in Annexure-2, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the view taken by the authority in rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as, there is no difference in law between the natural son and adopted son. He would, therefore, submit that as the solitary reason given in the impugned order is bad, this Court should direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for appointment on compassionate ground by 2 treating him to be the adopted son of late Tildhari Paswan. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the factum of adoption has been seriously disputed and it has been stated that the petitioner is the nephew of Tildhari Paswan and his wife also had made statement before the authorities that the petitioner was only a nephew and was looking after her after the death of her husband Tildhari Paswan. Counsel for the State also in this regard would submit that even the caste certificate of the petitioner issued after the death of the deceased employee would go to show that the name of the natural father of the petitioner was Sadhu Paswan and not Tildhari Paswan about whom it is claimed that he had adopted the petitioner as his son. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that at least there are two persons to support the factum of adoption, namely, the natural father of the petitioner and the widow of the deceased employee, who had clearly accepted the petitioner to be 3 successor of Tildhari Paswan and, therefore, there should not be any difficulty in accepting the petitioner to be the adopted son of Tildhari Paswan. In the considered opinion of this Court, while the correctness of the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, inasmuch as, the adopted son, after valid adoption, stands on the same footing as that of a son and, therefore, refusal to appoint an adopted son on the ground that there was no provision for adopted son for appointment on compassionate ground in the Government circular dated 5.10.1991 cannot be approved by this Court. An adopted son, being also a son is fully entitled for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground and to that extent, the order contained in Annexure-2 is bad in law and has to be set aside. The next question would be can this Court issue a consequential direction for now appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground by treating him to be the adopted son of late Tildhari Paswan. This Court however would find it difficult to do so, inasmuch 4 as, there is no registered document acknowledging the factum of adoption of the petitioner by Tildhari Paswan in his life time. There is also no other declaration by the deceased employee Tildhari Paswan in his lifetime made to his employer that he had adopted the petitioner as his son. As noted above, the respondents in fact have seriously disputed such factum of adoption on the basis of some declaration given by the wife of the deceased employee. In such a situation, when the issue of adoption of the petitioner is not free from doubt, the only recourse that the petitioner has to adopt for being appointed on compassionate ground is to file a civil suit seeking declaration that he was the adopted son of late Tildhari Paswan by impleading not only the other family members but, also the respondents to this writ application wherein he can also claim the consequential relief of his being appointed on compassionate ground in terms of the Government policy. If such a declaration is made in favour of the petitioner that he was the adopted son of 5 Tildhari Paswan, the respondent will be bound to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and take a decision strictly in accordance with the policy. It is made clear that as the civil suit has to be filed by the petitioner for proving the factum of adoption, the respondent State and its officials will be precluded from raising the plea of delay in considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)