Judgment 1. This appeal under Clause 10 of this Courts Letters Patent is against the order dated 3.11.1999 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7533 of 1998. By the order coming under appeal the learned Single Judge held that the actior of the State Government in declining to consider the case of the writ petitioner, respondent, for appointment on compassionate grounds for the reason that he was the adopted son of the deceased employee was bad and unjustified. The order under appeal accordingly directed the State to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and, if so required, to refer his case to the appropriate Compassionate Appointment Committee. 2. The appeal is without any substance or merit as the issue now stands concluded by an earlier Division Bench decision of this Court holding that any exclusion of an adopted son of a deceased Hindu employee from the scheme was not sustainable in law. The order coming under appeal, therefore, does not warrant any interference. 3. It is, however, appropriate to clear a misapprehension in the mind of the counsel appearing for the State. All that the order directs is that the case of the writ petitioner, respondent cannot be rejected on the ground that he was an adopted son of the deceased employee. The order under appeal does not preclude the concerned authorities to investigate whether the adoption was truly and validly made. Any such investigation may be held only after giving due opportunity to the claimant, respondent in this appeal. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 5. After the order was dictated, it was pointed out that the appeal was barred by limitation and was filed after about five months from the expiry of the period of limitation. Since we have dismissed the appeal on merit we may condone the limitation as well in filing this appeal subject to payment of cost of Rs. 100/-.