Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. While formulating the law governing compassionate appointment upon a government employee dying in harness it had been provided that wife, sons and unmarried daughters will be entitled to appointment. At the same time it was provided, amongst others, that adopted son will not be entitled to such appointment. In law there is no distinction between the natural son and adopted son, particularly, in relation to a Hindu. Therefore, despite it having been provided in the law that adopted son will not be entitled to compassionate appointment, the Division Bench of this court in the case of KamaI Ranjan V/s. The State of Bihar & ors. reported in 1994(2), PLJR 536 has laid down that an adopted son being a son of a Hindu in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, cannot be distinguished from a natural son for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. 3. In such view of the matter, the impugned decision not to give appointment to the petitioner only on the ground that he is adopted son is set aside. I have not applied my mind whether the adoption upon . which the claim is founded is in fact a sustainable claim or a genuine claim and accordingly direct the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for appointment within 8 weeks from the date of service of a copy of this order upon them. 4. This disposes of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.