1. - The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment which has been denied by the respondents finding it to be contrary to the rules.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was adopted by the erstwhile employee who died while in service. The adoption cannot be judged pursuant to the rules of the respondents organisation inasmuch as no rule exist in regard to adoption. The petitioner is one who had received all other retiral benefits like PF, Gratuity etc. In view of above, now, he cannot be denied compassionate appointment. In the reply, respondents have come out for the first time and that adoption is not permissible under Mohammedan Law. It is in variance to the reasons recorded in the impugned order. Keeping in mind the aforesaid direction may be issued for compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer.

4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. It is case where claim for compassionate appointment has been made showing petitioner to be adopted son of the erstwhile employee. Learned counsel for petitioner is fair enough to accept that Mohemmadon Law does not permit adoption. An argument has been raised regarding permissibility of the adoption as per the custom. However, I find no pleading in the writ petition to show any custom so as to permit adoption. The pleading on the issue is silent. In the background aforesaid, so far as adoption of the petitioner is concerned, it is not permissible under Mohemmadon law thus respondents rightly denied the benefit of compassionate appointment.

6. The question now comes as to whether compassionate appointment can be denied to a person received benefits of PF and Gratuity etc? It is stated that once aforesaid benefits are given, obvious consequence is to grant compassionate appointment. Reference of the judgment of this court in the case of "Bhagat Prajapat v. JVVNL & ors", DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.339/2008, decided on 15.12.2008 has been given apart from the judgment in the case of "Ram Singh v. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd & ors", SB Civil Writ Petition No. 329/2004, decided on 31.1.2007 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

7. I have gone through the above cited judgment in the case of Bhagat Prajapat (supra) and find that the controversy therein was quite different than in the present matter. Therein, the issue was not as to whether adoption is permissible under Mohemmadon Law or not, hence, judgment aforesaid cannot be applied. This is more so when Gratuity and PF can be received even by a nominee, who can be even a distant relative or any one else, however, so far as compassionate appointment is concerned, it can be to those who fall in the definition of 'dependant'. Adopted son falls in the definition provided adoption is legally permissible. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that adoption is not permissible under Mohemmadon law and nothing has been said about the custom prevalent in regard to adoption. The petitioner was at liberty to submit documents to show custom prevalent in the caste, however, nothing has been produced.

8. The position of fact is similar in the case of Ram Singh (supra). Therein, adoption was at the time when it was permissible though registration or written document was subsequent thus it was held that the respondents have failed to consider aforesaid aspect while denying compassionate appointment. Again, the case in hand is altogether based on different facts. Thus judgments referred to above provide no assistance.

9. In view of above, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.Petition Dismissed.

*******