Judgment D. P. Wadhwa, S. J. Mukhopadhyaya, J. 1. The matter relates to compassionate appointment of one adopted son. 2. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus for his appointment on compassionate ground, being adopted son of one Late Ram pyare Singh. 3. The facts, which are not in dispute show that Late Ram Pyare Singh was employee of the Respondent-State of Bihar. He (Ram Pyare Singh)adopted the petitioner as his son by a deed of adoption dated 3rd of June, 1980 with the consent of his wife, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi. The petitioner was below 12 years of age at that point of time. Said Ram Pyare Singh died, while in service, on 21st of August, 1985. Application was filed by the widow, Smt. Rajeshwari Devi for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground, being son of Late Ram Pyare Singh to look after the family, there being no other member being in service. The petitioner in the meantime passed matriculation Examination in the year 1985, Intermediate Examination in 1987 and B. A. (Hons.) in 1990. The case of petitioner and another similarly situated person, namely, Shri Kamal Ranjan was placed before the District Level Compassionate Committee for consideration of their cases for appointment on compassionate ground. The said Committee by meeting dated 17th of April, 1991, while accepted in the cases of both the persons, i. e. Shri Kamal Ranjan and the petitioner that their claim for appointment on compassionate ground is genuine, they being adopted sons of respective deceased Government employees, but in absence of any specific guideline, referred the matter to the higher authority. The District magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram) by letter dated 8th of December, 1993, referred the matter to the State Government, as in the meantime, by Resolution No.13293 dated 15th of October, 1991, it was decided by the State Government, that adopted son cannot be treated to be a dependant of an employee. No relief having been provided to the petitioner, he filed the writ petition on 22nd of December, 1994. 4. The other similarly situated person, namely, Shri Kamal Ranjan, who was also referred along with the petitioner, also referred along with the petitioner, also moved before this Court earlier by filing a similar writ petitibn c. W. J. C. No.10278 of 1993. 4. The other similarly situated person, namely, Shri Kamal Ranjan, who was also referred along with the petitioner, also referred along with the petitioner, also moved before this Court earlier by filing a similar writ petitibn c. W. J. C. No.10278 of 1993. A Division bench of this Court by its judgment in the case of Shri Kamal Ranjan (reported in 1994 (2) P. L. J. R.536 ; 1995 (2) BLJ 383 ) held that the circular dated 15th of October, 1991 is illegal, being arbitrary, as the provisions of Hindu adoptions and Maintenance Act cannot be superseded, nullified or modified in any manner by way of executive circular and further held that the adopted son should be treated as a son for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Relief was granted in favour of said Shri kamal Ranjan. 5. So far as the present writ petition is concerned, the matter was placed before the learned Single Judge. However, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to Division Bench, after taking into note the decision of Kamal ranjan (supra), on the following point: ". . . If the personal law of the applicant is considered to be relevant for this purpose, all persons under the personal law applicable, who acquire any right in any property etc. , must necessarily be included and made eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. . . . " In fact, the decision of Division bench in the case of Kamal Ranjan was doubted and so referred to this Division bench. 6 It is to be taken into note that another Division Bench of this Court took into note the aforesaid decision in the case of Kamal Ranjan (supra) expressed similar view in the case of Madhusudan Mishra V/s. The State of Bihar and others (1996 (1) P. L. J. R.482 ). . So far as the reference in question is concerned, it is true that the persons in whose cases the personal law is applicable, such persons acquire right of property, etc. However, so far as the compassionate appointment is concerned, the same is based on the guideline issued by the State Government from time to time. Such guidelines of the State of Bihar stipute appointment of a person on compassionate ground, who is dependant of such Government employee. In the definition of dependant certain persons have been included like son, daughter, etc. Such guidelines of the State of Bihar stipute appointment of a person on compassionate ground, who is dependant of such Government employee. In the definition of dependant certain persons have been included like son, daughter, etc. By virtue of such circular of the State Government, a person accrues right for consideration for such appointment on compassionate ground. It is not necessary that if a person is son of a deceased employee, even his own son, automatically accrues right to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. There are various factors to be taken into note, like (a)whether he was dependant of a deceased employee or not; (b) whether there is any other earning member in the family or not; and (c) what is the total income of the family of the deceased employee, etc. Any other person, whoever accrues any right over the property of a deceased person under the personal law, thereby cannot claim for compassionate appointment, till such person fulfils the aforesaid criteria laid down by the State Government for the purpose of compassionate appointment. However, if two persons, similarly situated and fulfil such criteria laid down by the State Government for compassionate appointment, like a son of a deceased employee and another adopted son of another deceased employee, then the question will arise as to whether the State Government can make a distinction vis-a-vis such person on the ground of adoption, is a matter to be tested, on the basis of nexus of the same, with the object to be achieved. The aforesaid matter, in fact, stands decided by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan (supra) and have come to a conclusion that the same has got no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and in this context the circular was held to be invalid. Thereby this bench does not see any reason to differ with the finding of other Division bench given in the case of Kamal Ronjan (supra ). 7. In the aforesaid background, this petitioner is entitled for similar relief, like Kamal Ranjan (supra), whose case was also considered along with the petitioner by the District Compassionate Committee vide meeting dated 17th of April, 1991. Accordingly, the writ is issued. 8. However, it is to be taken into note that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1985. Accordingly, the writ is issued. 8. However, it is to be taken into note that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1985. Generally in normal case this Court as well as the supreme Court refuses to grant appointment on compassionate ground, after long gap of death of deceased employee, as the principles for a number of years. But in the present case as the similarly situated persons, namely, kamal Ranjan has been granted relief, but because of the pendency of the present writ petition the petitioner suffered, we are not depriving the petitioner on such ground. But in any case this judgment, on this principle of appointment after delay should not be treated to be a precedence for other cases. 9. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against a post for which the petitioner is eligible and thereby to provide him appointment. Decision is to be taken, and order is to be passed, within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ-petition is allowed with the aforementioned observation and direction. No cost. Petition Allowed.