JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner no. 2 claims to be adopted son of the deceased. He had applied for compassionate appointment in due time enclosing necessary documents in support of the claim as the adopted son. His father was working on the post of Chaukidar. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners emphasised the strata of the society from which the deceased and the petitioner come to forcefully rely upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V/s. Most. Shitali Devi & Anr. reported in 2002(4) PLJR 62 at Paragraph 4. 4. The contention is that rejection of the claim in absence of any certification from the competent authority only without doubting the genuineness of the documents produced by the petitioner is arbitrary. 5. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 25.8.2009 in its present form with regard to the present petitioner is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. 6. This Court considers it proper to quote Paragraph 4 of the judgment of this Court in the case of Most. Shitali Devi (supra) referred to above: "4. The Court is of the view that this matter should not be made an issue and the logic of the regulation is not going to solve any human problem. If the employees, who are being considered, are class- IV employees then regard being had to be realities it is unlikely that in that strata of the society issueless couples go through the formality of the law and make an adoption and have it duly registered. This is a common law concept. An oriental society such as ours containing an amalgam of many cultures does by practice and custom resort to resolving problems within the family and society, and adoption is one such modality. Indian marriages in generality do not see a registration but are conducted on custom. The case before the railway was one such circumstance. If the railway takes the posture that the strictness of the regulation must apply, then it is clear that no Class- IV employees wards may get an employment if adopted. Nobody apprehends death of an earning member so as to keep papers as a record, to be made available for such an eventuality. If the railway takes the posture that the strictness of the regulation must apply, then it is clear that no Class- IV employees wards may get an employment if adopted. Nobody apprehends death of an earning member so as to keep papers as a record, to be made available for such an eventuality. The eventuality is to seek employment on the rule of harness. In India amongst economically weaker sections of the society, and at times the middle class not excluded, the generality is that children are adopted and are brought up by foster parents without the rigours of a registered document. This is one such matter where a hard or fast rule or a rigid interpretation of the regulation may, perhaps provide a soul-less escape for the railway administration but it will defeat the rule of harness and not solve a problem of life for a class for whom the rule was meant. Fraud, mischief, misrepresentation may by all means be inquired, so as not to render the Rule of Harness in service nugatory. But if the relationship of adoption and foster parents be bona fide and not manufactured to defeat a regulation, such a relationship, exceptions apart as pointed out, should be accepted." 7. Directions are now issued to decide the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order in the light of the law laid down by this Court. 8. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above.