- (1.) PETITIONER, by way of this petition, has prayed for a direction to respondents to appointment him on compassionate ground as per his qualification, treating him to be adopted son of deceased Kaluram Meena, who had been serving with erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board on the post of Helper Grade-I. Kaluram Meena died in harness on 26.12.1999 while serving respondent department. At that time he was working on the post of Helper Grade-I in office of Assistant Engineer (Rural), Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Sanganer, Jaipur. It is clarified that Rajasthan State Electricity Board was divided into five different companies to manage their operations independently and one of those is Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, where petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that Kaluram Meena, during his lifetime, had taken petitioner in adoption with consent of his wife on 07.01.1994. In this connection, learned counsel referred to application dated 29.06.2000, which he, for first time, submitted to respondent no.2 - Deputy Secretary (Recruitment) Rajasthan State Electricity Board, Jaipur. 'Pagri' ceremony was also held on 06.01.2000 in presence of panchas of the community and a written declaration ('ikrarnama/godnama') was signed by petitioner and his adoptive mother as well as large number of panchas. Mother of petitioner also submitted a written application to respondents on 18.03.2000 with which she produced 'godnama' dated 07.01.1994. Subsequently, when respondents did not pay terminal/retiral dues of deceased employee, petitioner and her adoptive mother Lichhmi Devi filed an application No.02/2000 under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act before the District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in which Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through its Chief Engineer and Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited through its Secretary were also impleaded as non-applicants no.2 and 3. Issue no.2 that was framed was to the effect whether Babulal was adopted by late Kaluram and is Babulal adopted son of late Kaluram and if yes, what was its effect on present case? In those proceedings, 'ikrarnama/godnama' was exhibited in evidence as Exhibit-14. Earlier 'godnama' was also exhibited as Exhibit-17. Application dated 03.07.1985, which was submitted by Kaluram to respondent department for advancement of loan to perform 'mundan' ceremony of petitioner, was also produced in evidence and exhibited as Exhibit-12. DW-6 Govind Ram and DW-10 Babulal also proved factum of adoption. Learned District Judge, in his order dated 08.04.2004 in Succession Application No.02/2000, has recorded a finding that petitioner was legally adopted son of deceased Kaluram. Said order dated 08.04.2004 has been upheld by this court vide order dated 23.01.2006 in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.757/2004 filed by one Smt. Soni and finding regarding adoption of petitioner has been affirmed. Yet, respondents by their order dated 23.06.2000 (Exhibit R-1) rejected application of petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that petitioner cannot be taken as legally adopted son of deceased Kaluram.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondent opposed writ petition and submitted that respondent Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited has adopted the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996. It was argued that since there is no evidence that petitioner was adopted during lifetime of deceased employee Kaluram as no registered adoption-deed has been produced, nor a mention thereof has been made in the notice for demand of justice served by the petitioner, he cannot be taken as legally adopted son of deceased employee. It was argued that judgment passed by the court of District Judge was rendered in altogether different context and, therefore, that judgment cannot be binding on the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material on record, I find that there is finding of District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, in his order dated 08.04.2004 on Issue no.2 in Succession Application No.02/2000 as to status of petitioner that he is legally adopted son of deceased Kaluram and that his adoption had taken place during his lifetime. This finding is based on various documents, namely, earlier 'godnama' dated 07.01.1994, 'ikrarnama/godnama' executed by widow of deceased at the time of 'pagri' ceremony of petitioner in presence of large number of witnesses, which was exhibited as Exhibit-14, the application of deceased Kaluram to respondent Rajasthan State Electricity Board dated 03.07.1985 for advancement of loan to perform 'mundan' ceremony of petitioner, which was exhibited as Exhibit-12 and that there was oral evidence of DW-6 Govind Ram and DW-10 Babulal. Rule 2(c) of said Rules defines "Dependent" to mean a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter, adopted son/adopted unmarried daughter, legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time and who were wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. Phraseology 'legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time' fully satisfies the requirement of legally adopted during lifetime of government servant in present case in view of finding of the District Judge in succession proceedings, to which the respondent Department was itself party. That order would obviously be binding upon the respondents as well because such finding has been recorded on the basis of evidence after contest by them. That finding was assailed by one of respondents Smt. Soni before this court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.757/2004 and this court vide its order dated 23.01.2006 dismissed the appeal upholding that finding of learned District Judge. Non-consideration of case of petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that his adoption in absence of valid adoption deed is not legal, as well as order dated 23.06.2000 (Exhibit R-1) rejecting application of petitioner for his compassionate appointment, cannot be therefore sustained. Accordingly, writ petition deserves to succeed and it is accordingly allowed. Order dated 23.06.2000 (Exhibit R-1) is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back to respondents for considering candidature of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground with further direction that if he is otherwise found suitable, to grant him appointment on compassionate ground on any suitable post as per his eligibility, with effect from the date his application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the impugned order. However, for intervening period, petitioner shall be entitled to only notional benefits. Compliance be made within a period of three months from the date a copy of this order is produced before respondents.;