1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner no. 2 claims to be adopted son of the deceased. He had applied for compassionate appointment in due time enclosing necessary documents in support of the claim as the adopted son. His father was working on the post of Chaukidar.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners emphasised the strata of the society from which the deceased and the petitioner come to forcefully rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V/s. Most. Shitali Devi & Anr. reported in 2002(4) PLJR 62 at Paragraph 4.

4. The contention is that rejection of the claim in absence of any certification from the competent authority only without doubting the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner is arbitrary.

5. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 in its present form with regard to the present petitioner is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside.

6. This Court considers it proper to quote Paragraph 4 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Most. Shitali Devi (supra) referred to above:

"4. The Court is of the view that t