The present appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5674 of 2003, whereby the appellants-corporation have been directed to pay the the family pension in accordance with law.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, late Raj Kumari was issueless widow and she had no family member to look after her. She adopted the respondent-writ petitioner in the year, 1987 while he was aged about 10 years and executed a deed of Gift in favour of the respondent on 05.01.1987 for payment of Gratuity, Provident Fund ex-gratia etc. in case of her death. On 17.06.1987, late Raj Kumari made a representation to the appellants-corporation and introduced the respondent as her nominee for her C.P.F Account No. W-7544, which was duly accepted by the appellants-corporation vide its letter No. 2942 dated 03.02.1988.

3. Late Raj Kumari retired from service of the appellants-corporation on 31.07.1994 and the C.P.F amount was paid to her but before finalization and payment of other retiral benefits she died on 08.02.1996 in the D.V.C, C.T.P.S Hospital due to serious illness. Thereafter, the appellants-corporation, vide letter No. AP/9432/2125 dated 03.12.1996 directed the respondent to submit the death certificate and also the succession certificate from the competent Court for being entitled to receive D.C.R.G, commuted value and pension due in respect of late Raj Kumari.

4. In pursuance thereof, the respondent moved before the District Judge, Bokaro by filing Succession Certificate Case No. 04 of 1997 and vide order dated 8.10.1999, Succession Certificate was granted in favour of respondent to collect the debts, dues and securities of late Raj Kumari. The respondent, thereafter, submitted the Succession Certificate before the appellants-corporation and vide letter No. AO/Pen-Sanction-132 dated 13.04.2001, the respondent was accepted as the adopted son and directions were issued by the appellants-corporation to pay the dues of late Raj Kumari towards undrawn arrear of pension of Rs. 12,474/-, D.C.R.G of Rs. 27,750/- and commuted value of Rs. 27,194/- but the same was not paid. Thereafter, the respondent on 22.08.2001 applied for settlement and payment of family pension in the required format but nothing was paid. The respondent again on 10.01.2002 sent a representation to settle the family pension in his favour, however, the same was not paid.

5. The respondent, thereafter, filed writ petition, being W.P.(S) No. 5674 of 2003 for family pension, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.12.2008 with a direction to the appellants-corporation to pay family pension in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production/receipt of copy of this order. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellants-corporation have filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

6. Heard Mr. Satish Ughal learned counsel appearing for the appellants-corporation and Mr. R.N. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that though the retiral benefits of the deceased-employee, namely, late Raj Kumari has been paid to the respondent, the respondent is not entitled for family pension on account of death of the deceased-employee as he is not legally adopted son of the deceased-employee. It is further submitted that in fact the adoption of the respondent and his nomination by the deceased-employee, namely, late Raj Kumari, is disputed. Since the respondent obtained the succession certificate, the appellants-corporation granted the retiral dues of the deceased-employee to the respondent and this would not make the respondent entitled for payment of family pension. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Violet Issaac & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 1 SCC 725 and also the judgment rendered in the case of Jodh Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 306.

8. Learned co