Sandeep Mehta, J. - (1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to the respondent AVVNL to offer him appointment on compassionate basis in place of his adoptive father late Shri Radheyshyam, who died in harness while in service of the respondent AVVNL.
(2.) SHRI Radheyshyam was serving the respondent corporation on the post of SSA. He passed away on 19.5.2008. During his lifetime, Shri Radheyshyam had adopted the petitioner and had nominated him in his service record for receiving all his post service benefits. The nomination was approved by the respondent company on 16.9.2004. Immediately after death of Shri Radheyshyam the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent AVVNL claiming appointment in place of his adoptee father on compassionate basis. Before applying, the petitioner filed an application in the court of the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Chittorgarh Camp Begun under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. The application was allowed by order dated 11.11.2009. A succession certificate was issued in the petitioner's favour, whereby he was declared to be Sh. Radheyshyam's successor. However, after processing the petitioner's application, the Assistant Engineer, AVVNL communicated him an order dated 10.1.2011 informing the petitioner that since he was not a lawfully adopted son of the deceased employee, he could not be given compassionate appointment in place of Shri Radheyshyam. Upon this, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting his application for compassionate appointment. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents, who have filed a reply thereto. It is asserted in the reply that since the petitioner was not the lawfully adopted son of employee late Shri Radheyshyam, he cannot claim compassionate appointment in his place. It is further stated that the fact regarding the petitioner's adoption is a disputed question of fact, which could only be decided by the Civil Court. An objection is raised that the petitioner is not possessed of a valid adoption document and therefore, is not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is also pleaded in the reply that since the petitioner has managed to carry on with his life for the last so many years, no cause survives for giving him compassionate appointment in place of his adoptive father.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court in the case of Keshar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7356/2012 and urged that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment. As per him, the deceased adopted the petitioner by customary rites and ceremonies. He contended that while examining a prayer for compassionate appointment, the authorities have no jurisdiction to enter into the validity or otherwise of the documents of adoption. It is further contended that since the Civil Court has already declared the petitioner to be the adopted son of employee late Shri Radheyshyam, the respondent company's action in rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is totally bad in the eye of law. Learned counsel relied upon the following findings of the Civil Court and urged that the authorities acted in total disregard to the findings of the Civil Court while rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment: ;