- (1.) Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, an Assistant Engineer working with Rajasthan State Electricity Board, died while in service on 17.7.1999. Shri Raj Kumar, the respondent petitioner, claiming himself as an adopted son of Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit submitted an application to have appointment as Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds.
(2.) As per the respondent petitioner his claim for appointment was rejected under an office order/letter dated 4.9.2004 with reason that Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit at the time of his death was unmarried and validity of adoption of the respondent petitioner as son could have been settled only by a competent civil court. It was also stated that till such adjudication no appointment on compassionate grounds could have been given. In the year 2006 the respondent petitioner filed a civil suit before the court of learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jodhpur to have a decree to declare him an adopted son of Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit and in the suit aforesaid the present appellant was arrayed as defendant No.6. By judgment dated 1.12.2009 the civil court decreed the suit with a declaration that the plaintiff is an adopted son of Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, however, the issue as to whether the present appellant was party necessary to the writ proceedings was decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the present appellant. The civil court held that the respondent No.6 is not a party necessary to the suit proceedings and was unnecessarily arrayed as defendant.
(3.) After obtaining the decree the respondent petitioner again approached the appellant respondent for his appointment on compassionate grounds being a dependent to Late Shri Roopesh Chand Purohit, however, since the same was not offered, he preferred a petition for writ that came to be accepted by the judgment impugned. Learned Writ Court while accepting the petition for writ, held and directed as under:- "It is not in dispute that the petitioner is adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit. It is also not in dispute that late Rupesh Chandra Purohit was working on the post of Assistant Engineer under the control of the respondents. The denial of appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner is that on the day on which the petitioner was adopted he was 30 years of age and as epr Section 10 of the Act of 1956 no person can be adopted who is more than 15 years of age as on the date of adoption. But, in the case, when the respondents refused to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment, then, the petitioner preferred a suit before the civil Court and said suit was registered as Civil Suit No.104/2006 and the same was finally decided by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur on 01.12.2009, in which, the petitioner is declared legally adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit. I have perused the judgment rendered by the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur (Annex.-5), in which, the trial Court observed while deciding issue No.3 that the petitioner was adopted as per Hindu custom and the customs of the Pushkarna society in the year 1983 and, at that time, the age of the petitioner was only 12 13 years; meaning thereby, the civil decree has been passed in favour of the petitioner after due examination of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for providing appointment on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion of this Court there is no jurisdiction left with the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground because upon the objection raised by the respondents the petitioner sought declaration from the civil Court and vide judgment and decree dated 01.12.2009 the Addl. District Judge No.3, Jodhpur declared that the petitioner is legally adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit." "In view of above, I see no reason to deny the right of appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to provide appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner being adopted son of late Rupesh Chandra Purohit who died while in service on 17.07.1999 in accordance with the rules. It is made clear that the petitioner was within age limit for appointment when he moved the application in 1999. Therefore, at the time of considering the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground the question of upper age limit will not come in way because the petitioner was illegally denied appointment when he was within age limit.";