IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16042 of 2007 KAILASH SINGH adopted son of late Maksudan Singh, resident of village-Birpur, P.S. Jurawanpur, District-Vaishali. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Secretary, Water Rsources Department, Irrigation Bhawan, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 4. Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Katihar 5.Superintending Engineer, Mahananda, Katihar, Flood Control. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Dudh Nath Singh,Advocate For the State : Mr.Kinkar Kumar,A.C. to G.P.21 For the Intervener:Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate --- 2. 29.3.2010 I.A. No.164 of 2010 has been filed by one Shatrughan Prasad Singh Nirmal and Laxmi Singh, both of whom claim to be the brothers of the deceased employee, Maksudan Singh, for being impleaded as intervener-respondents since they oppose the claim of the petitioner for getting an appointment on compassionate ground after the death of their brother Maksudan Singh. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prayer for intervention by the intervener-applicants is allowed. I.A. No.164 of 2010 is, accordingly, disposed of. The petitioner seeks appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of one Maksudan Singh, who was an employee in the - 2 - Department of Farm Development Division Kosi/Command Area Development Agency, Saharsa under the Water Resources Development Department, Bihar. The said employee died in harness on 20.5.1996 as Treasury Guard. The petitioner claims to be an adopted son with respect to which he has produced an affidavit allegedly sworn by the deceased employee on 7.1.1993. The interveners, own uncles of the petitioner, submit that the petitioner was the only son of his father Lakhan Singh, who is their other brother as also that of the deceased, whereas the other brothers of the deceased employee, namely, these two interveners had more than one son. He denied that any such adoption had or could have taken place in the facts of the case. The stand of the State respondents, on the other hand, is that it is unsafe to accept the writ petitioner as adopted son of late Maksudan Singh, as the death-cum-retiral claims of the deceased have been paid to his brother Shatrughan Singh on the basis of the succession certificate produced by him; it would, therefore, be unsafe to accept the writ petitioner as the adopted son of - 3 - late Maksudan Singh until and unless so declared by a court of competent jurisdiction. In view of the mutual difference in the family of the deceased employee and the statements made on behalf of the interveners, as also stated in the counter affidavit on behalf of the State respondent No.4, this Court does not find the stand of the State respondents as unjustified. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )