Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned reply/order dated 17.4.2010 sent/passed by respondent No. 3 with the further prayer to direct the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 (herein after referred to as Rules of 1974), within specific period.

2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the father of the petitioner late Radhey Shyam was confirmed Class IV Employee with the respondents and he expired in harness on 21.11.2007. Initially the father of the petitioner was issue less therefore through registered adoption deed he adopted the petitioner on 25.2.2004, copy of adoption deed has been brought on record as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. After the death of father, the petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 3.12.2007 under the Rules of 1974 but nothing was done. The petitioner has sent thereafter number of reminders on 15.2.2008, 28.2.2008 and 16.7.2008, copy of the application as well as reminders have been brought on record as Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.

3. It is stated in paragraph No. 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner has obtained succession certificate on 14.2.2008, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition.

3. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, that after the death of his father, the petitioner has received all the service benefits as a legal heir of his father late Radhey Shyam.

5. It appears that the respondent No. 3 through letter dated 3.3.2008 has inquired from the higher authorities whether an adopted son of a deceased employee is entitled to get an appointment under the Rules of 1974? copy of this letter has been brought on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. When nothing was done, the petitioner has sent a legal notice on 10.4.2010. In pursuance thereof, impugned information dated 17.4.2010 has been given to the petitioner which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

6. From the perusal of the impugned reply/order dated 17.4.2010 sent by Regional Director Social Forestry Region Bareilly it transpires that Regional Director Social Forestry Region has taken the view that adopted son do not fall in the ambit of son and dependent as defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974.

7. While assailing the impugned notice Sri C.B. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it has not been denied by the respondents that the son of a deceased employee falls in the ambit of definition of family as defined under the Rules of 1974 and what has been denied is that the adopted son do not fall in the ambit of son. In his submissions, the respondents could not differentiate in between son and adopted son as the adopted son is as good as natural son under the provisions of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1956). In his submissions, the impugned reply/order dated 17.4.2010 is illegal and deserves to be quashed.

8. Refuting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner learned standing counsel has tried to defend the notice/order dated 17.4.2010 passed by Regional Director Social Forestry Region Bareilly by saying that the order dated 17.4.2010 is perfectly legal as there is no word like ‘adopted son’ mentioned in the definition of family of the dependents of deceased under the Rules of 1974. In his submissions no infirmity can be attached with the impugned order.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and considered their submissions. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal on the admitted facts of the case.

10. The dispute involved in this case revolves towards the word ‘adopted son’.

To appreciate the contro