1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICTURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R Narain Singh. Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3784/2004. ... Date of Order: January 02, 2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Girish Sankhla, for the petitioner. Ms. Vidhyawati Bora, Assistant Govt. Advocate. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the non- petitioners to consider his application for providing him an appointment on compassionate ground. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the present petitioner is the adoptive son of late Roop Singh Deora, who was an employee of the non- petitioners, i.e. the Medical, Health and Family Welfare Department and expired while in service on 28-6-1994. The petitioner, being adopted son of deceased Roop Singh Deora, applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the 2 Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying while in Service Rules, 1975 (for short, “the Rules, 1975” hereinafter). The petitioner filed an application, which was pursued by the Senior Medical Officer, Incharge of Primary Health Centre, Ahore, district Jalore vide Annx.1. Despite several requests, the non-petitioners failed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the non- petitioners, wherein it has been admitted that late Roop Singh Deora was an employee of the non-petitioner Department, who, while in service, expired on 28-6-1994. In para 2 of the reply, it is contended that the benefits which were admissible to the family of the deceased government employee, have already been given to the petitioner. It was further contended that the Adoption Deed submitted by the petitioner was not a registered document and, therefore, in absence of registration of the adoption deed, it cannot be said that the petitioner had gone in adoption to deceased employee Roop Singh Deora. From the contentions raised in the reply, as also contended by the learned Assistant Government Advocate appearing for State, it appears that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered solely on the ground that the adoption deed, which has been executed by deceased employee Roop Singh Deora during his life-time, has 3 not been registered. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decisions of this Court in Gopa Ram Vs. The Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr., SBCWP No. 1477/2003 decided on 24.9.2003; Smt. Geeta Devi & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1997 WLC (Raj.) UC 135; and Jaiprakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors., 1995 (1) WLC (Raj.) 554. In Gopa Ram Vs. The Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the non-petitioners therein denied the appointment to the petitioner therein on the ground that the registered adoption deed produced by the petitioner therein was dated 21-6-2000 whereas the death of the deceased employee in that case took place on 23.-5-2000. The averments in the adoption deed revealed that the deceased Government employee therein adopted the petitioner therein on 19-12-96 with the consent of his wife Smt. Veeru. This Court held that the adoption of the petitioner therein by the deceased government employee was in his life-time; however, the adoption deed was subsequently got registered by the widow of the deceased after the death of the deceased government employee, i.e. on 21.6.2000. This Court held that the deceased himself took the petitioner therein in adoption and, therefore, the petitioner, being an adopted son of the deceased government employee, is entitled to be considered for the compassionate appointment. 4 In Smt. Geeta Devi & ors. Vs. State of Rajsthan & ors. (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court, while considering the provisions of the Rules, 1975, held that a provision has been made in the Rules of 1975 itself that the benefit of the Rules can be extended to any of the relatives of the deceased to be named by the widow of the deceased government employee. The petitioner No.2 therein was not only the adopted son but also a close relative, being the nephew of the deceased and, therefore, his case falls under the definition of “family” and also under the proviso to rule 2 (4) of the Rules, 1975. This Court issued the writ of mandamus to the non-petitioners therein to offer a suitable appointment to the petitioner No.2 therein as per his qualification, being falling under the beneficiaries of the deceased. In Jaiprakash Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra), a coordinate Bench of this Court held that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules to the contrary so as to deprive an adopted son to succeed to the estate of the deceased such as, pension, gratuity, Provident Fund, Life Insurance etc. so long as he had been validly adopted by the deceased father or any other relative of the deceased as the case may be. In the instant case, the petitioner has placed on record the adoption deed (Annx.14) dated 14-11-1993 signed by the deceased himself, as also the person who gave the petitoner 5 in adoption to deceased employee Roop Singh Deora in the presence of the attesting witnesses of the adoption deed. Annx.15, executed by the wife of the deceased government employee on 29-7-1994 is on record. In the averments made in the registered adoption deed Annx.15, it has been made clear that on 9-7-1994, the petitioner was taken in adoption by deceased employee Roop Singh Deora, the husband of the executant of Annx.15 in accordance with the custom prevailing in the society and a document to that effect was reduced to writing and the adoption was with the consent of Smt. Suraj Kanwar, the widow of deceased Government employee Roop Singh Deora. EX.P/1 is a registered adoption deed. The petitioner has also placed on record certain other documents like the Driving Licence of the petitioner, wherein the father's name of the petitioner has been shown as Roop Singh Deora. It has also been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the post-death benefits of deceased Roop Singh Deora have been paid to the petitioner and his adoptive mother Smt. Suraj Kanwar Wd/o deceased government employee Roop Singh Deora. This shows that the non-petitioners have also admitted the petitioner to be an adopted son of deceased government employee Roop Singh Deora. In the circumstances, therefore, the act of the non- petitioners denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner 6 cannot be said to be legal. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The non- petitioners are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. There shall be no order as to the costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. mcs