Legal adoption for compassionate appointment must occur during the lifetime of the deceased government servant to qualify as a dependent under the Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996.

JUDGMENT

Sameer Jain, J. - Instant writ petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment claiming himself to be adopted son and dependent of the deceased Government Servant Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma who died while in Government service.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is an adopted son of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma who died in an accident on 11/04/2003 while in Government service. On 20/05/2003, the petitioner filed an application in prescribed form alongwith all necessary documents for appointment on compassionate ground being dependent of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma. The petitioner also filed one Civil Suit against against Smt. Vimal Devi, wife of the deceased Government Servant Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma for declaration and permanent injunction regarding his adoption and permanent injunction. In the said Civil Suit vide judgment dated 24/07/2003, it was declared that the petitioner is an adopted son of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma. It is contended that in spite of the said judgment, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not accepted by the respondents on the premise that in all the educational qualifications documents like marks sheets, character certificates instead of name of late Kailash Chandra Sharma, name of the biological father Mr. Giriraj Prasad Sharma was there which is evident from annexure 4 dated 16/06/2003. In this background, the present writ petition was filed submitting that in the light of judgment dated 24/07/2003 passed by the competent civil court and on account that the adoption took place on 21/04/1983, the petitioner being adopted son of the deceased Government Servant, is entitled to be given compassionate appointment.

3. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the adoption was an afterthought as the same took place on 24/07/2003 i.e. fter death and not during lifetime of the deceased Government servant and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to avail benefit of compassionate appointment in terms of the provision of the Rajasthan Compassionate appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996. Secondly, the respondents have placed reliance upon the application form submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment (ann.-3) and the letter dated 16/06/2003 of the respondents (ann.-4) from which it is evident that the petitioner has shown himself to be aged about 32 years and married at the time of submission of application form and that the name of Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma was also not reflecting as his father in his marks sheets and character certificates etc. even when he claims that the adoption took place on 21/04/1983 as per customs.

4. This Court has considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, scanned records of the writ petition and has also gone through the judgments cited at bar.

5. Before addressing on the issue, this Court considers it appropriate to go through the definition of the word 'Dependent' as provided under Section 2(c) of the Rules of 1996 which provides as under:-

" "Dependent" means 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."

6. On perusal of the said definition, it is abundantly clear that to qualify as dependent for seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment, the law mandates as under:-

(a) Legal adoption

(b) During his/her life time of the deceased Government servant and

(c) wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death.

7. In the case in hand, the legal adoption as per the decree of the competent civil court took place on 24/07/2003 whereas the deceased Government servant had died on 11/04/2003 and therefore, admittedly, the pet