JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is the son of late Sitaram Singh, who died on 1.9.2007 while serving as Hawildar in the Police Line, Muzaffarpur. Within the time provided for filing application for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, petitioner applied claiming himself to be the adopted son of late Sitaram Singh. The said application was considered by the District Compassionate Committee in its proceeding taken on 28.7.2008 and was rejected observing that petitioner is adopted son of late Sitaram Singh, but the adoption appears to have been made through a Panchnama, which is not registered and was executed one day earlier to his death. The consideration made by the District Compassionate Committee on 28.7.2008 is contained in Memo No. 886 dated 4.8.2008, Annexure-5 to this application. 3. Counsel for the petitioner is assailing the aforesaid consideration and rejection of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by the District Compassionate Committee on 28.7.2008 on the ground that the finding that petitioner was adopted by Late Sitaram Singh just one day before his death is not correct as the Panchnama was executed on a stamp paper, which was purchased from a registered stamp vendor by his natural/biological father, Sri Ramji Singh on 18.1.2001 and thereafter the natural father, Sri Ramji Singh and mother, Smt. Vimla Devi offered petitioner their son to Sri Sitaram Singh and his wife Smt. Kishori Devi for adoption on 20.1.2001 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Shatrughan Kumar Singh and Chhathi Lal. Mahto. Aforesaid Panchnama was drawn on 20.1.2001 after adoption of the petitioner by Sri Sitaram Singh and his wife and is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner, with reference to the adoption deed, Annexure-1, that the finding of the District Compassionate Committee that the adoption was made just one day prior to the death of late Sitaram Singh, is not correct. In this connection, learned counsel has also relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V/s. Most. Shitali Devi & Anr., reported in 2002(4) PLJR 62 to submit that the rigours of law, while considering the case of Classs-lll/IV employee for appointment on compassionate ground, should not be applied with full force. V/s. Most. Shitali Devi & Anr., reported in 2002(4) PLJR 62 to submit that the rigours of law, while considering the case of Classs-lll/IV employee for appointment on compassionate ground, should not be applied with full force. In this connection he has referred to the following passage: "If the employees, who are being considered, are Class-IV employees then regard being had to the 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 the 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." 5. Counsel for the State, however, has opposed the prayer. Counsel for the State, however, has opposed the prayer. He submits that finding recorded by the District Compassionate Committee that petitioner was adopted just one day before the death of late Sitaram Singh may not be in tune with the deed of adoption, Annexure-1, but this Court should not remit back the matter for reconsideration as from Annexure-1, it does not appear that offer made by biological father and mother of the petitioner for adoption of the petitioner by late Sitaram Singh and his wife was ever accepted by them as their acceptance is not found recorded over Annexure-1. 6. Aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the State has been noticed only for being rejected as such hyper-technical submission is not required to be considered in the matters of adoption as is enunciated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. (supra). The passage is quoted above. 7. Accordingly, I not only quash the consideration made by the District Compassionate Committee on 28.7.2008, as contained in Memo No. 886 dated 4.8.2008, Annexure-5 to this application so far it relates to petitioner, but also direct the District Compassionate Committee to reconsider the matter in the light of the deed of adoption, Annexure-1 to this application as also the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in the case of Union of India & Ors. (supra) as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is, accordingly, disposed of.