ORDER :

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 28/6/2022 (Annex.14) passed by the respondents, whereby, the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate basis under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of the Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules, 1996’) has been rejected.

2. It is inter alia indicated in the petition that the petitioner is son of late Smt. Shankuntala Bhati, who was serving with the respondent PHED Department and died while in service on 9/5/2021. It is claimed that Smt. Shankuntala Bhati was survived by petitioner – her son and one daughter. It is also indicated that though two sons were born to Smt. Shankuntala Bhati, however, during her lifetime she gave her son – Shakti Singh in adoption to uncle of the petitioner by way of a registered adoption deed dated 28/1/2011. The petitioner applied for appointment under the Rules of 1996 being the only person entitled under the Rules to seek compassionate appointment as his sister was married at the time of death of their mother.

3. It is indicated that on application being made, the respondents from time to time raised queries, sought documents and explanation, which were promptly given by the petitioner and when despite completing all the formalities needful was not done by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court by filing SBCWP No. 7613/2022 which came to be disposed of on 26/5/2022 (Annex.12), wherein the petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of and the competent authority was directed to dispose of the pending application of the petitioner with utmost expedition, in any case before 30/6/2022.

4. The petitioner again made a representation and by order dated 28/6/2022 (Annex.14) the application made by the petitioner was rejected. The application has been rejected by indicating that name of Shakti Singh has not been indicated in the application and affidavits filed for the purpose of seeking appointment and said Shakti Singh has not accorded his No Objection. Further, the fact of giving Shakti Singh in adoption has not been informed to the Department. Based on the said aspect, it was observed that the application was liable to be dismissed as the information regarding adoption was not communicated to the Department, son Shakti Singh was given in adoption at the age of 24 years and there is no mention of any custom and, therefore, the adoption was not valid, the amount of GPF/State Insurance has been received by all the three children and the affidavit given by Shakti Singh indicates the name of natural father, as Shakti Singh is working with the Union Bank of India, under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1996 as one of the family members of the deceased is already in service with the PSU Bank, the application for compassionate appointment could not be accepted and consequently dismissed the same.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that action of the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner by not recognizing the adoption of his brother Shakti Singh on the purported grounds indicated in the order impugned is ex facie illegal.

6. Submissions have been made that the adoption took place way back in the year 2011 by way of a registered adoption deed. It is not the case of the respondents that the said adoption deed is a made up document and, therefore, in terms of provisions of Section 12 and 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (‘the Act, 1956’) as there is presumption as to the registered documents relating to adoption and the effect of adoption is that Shakti Singh cannot be treated as child of late Smt. Shakuntala Bhati, rejection of petitioner’s application on account of Shakti Singh being in employment of PSU Bank is illegal, incorrect, in valid and against the law and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the