JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner has come up with the present writ petition challenging the impugned order passed by the second respondent dated 15.05.2011 rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 3. The short matrix of the matter as stated in the affidavit is set out hereunder: The petitioner was born on 26.03.1991 to one Pushpalatha and she abandoned her in the organization called “Family’s for Children” by way of adoption deed dated 6.9.91. One Thiru. A.S. Jayaraman and Tmt. K.V. Shantha Jayaraman who have no issues adopted the petitioner. The order came to be passed to that effect by a judgment dated 20.01.1993 by the learned District Judge, Coimbatore in O.P.No. 87 of 1992. The adopted father A.S. Jayaraman was in employment of Electricity Board as Assistant Executive Engineer at Auto Sub-Station, TNEB, Vinnmangalam. On 24.11.2006, he passed away while in service leaving behind his wife and the petitioner, his adopted daughter. The petitioner made an application for appointment on compassionate ground, after attaining majority. The same was rejected on the only ground viz., the petitioner being the adopted daughter of the deceased, she is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. 4. In the impugned order, it is stated that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation was amended on 28.04.2007, in and by which the adopted son and daughter could be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner’s adopted father died on 24.11.2006 much prior to the amendment was introduced. Therefore, it is stated that the said amendment made in the proceedings of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board will not be applicable to the petitioner. 5. In my considered view, the said stand taken by the respondent is liable to be set at naught. Even assuming that the Regulation giving the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the adopted son and daughter, came to be passed on 28.04.2007, later to the death of the petitioner’s father, as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the petitioner has to be construed as the legal daughter of the deceased. Even assuming that the Regulation giving the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground to the adopted son and daughter, came to be passed on 28.04.2007, later to the death of the petitioner’s father, as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, the petitioner has to be construed as the legal daughter of the deceased. The said view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3883 of 2004. Paragraph No.10 of the order made thereunder is usefully extracted hereunder: “Mr. V. Prakash, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has brought to our notice a Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in the case of Kamal Ranjan vs. State of Bihar (1995 Labour and Industrial Cases 2562). The question before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court is, whether an adopted son of the deceased Government servant, dying in harness in the service of the State of Bihar is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. The Division Bench, after referring Section 12 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (In short, ‘the Act’), which provision confers upon the adopted child, the same rights and privileges in the adoptive family as the legitimate natural born son or daughter for all purposes has concluded, “5. It is, thus, difficult to accept the plea of the respondents that an adopted son or daughter of a deceased Government employee dying in harness is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. Any stipulation to the contrary as contained in the circulars of the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department dated 15.10.1991 must be held to illegal and arbitrary. It need hardly be emphasized that the provision of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act cannot be superseded, nullified or modified in any manner by the State, much less by way of executive circulars.” In view of the language used in Section 12 of the Act, we are in respectful agreement with the said view. However, as rightly pointed out, the burden is on the person, who make such claim and substantiate that his or her adoption was valid in law. This would, of course, require proper enquiry. We make it clear that if proper care is not taken to scrutinize the claims, there may be possibility of spurious claimants getting jobs frustrating the object of compassionate appointment. This would, of course, require proper enquiry. We make it clear that if proper care is not taken to scrutinize the claims, there may be possibility of spurious claimants getting jobs frustrating the object of compassionate appointment. As said earlier, in the case on hand, the petitioner was adopted during the life time of C. Balan and in fact the Board recognized him and sanctioned family pension, since he is the only surviving heir of said Balan. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the second ground also. 6. In view of the above stated position, I am of the considered view that the respondent cannot harbour that the petitioner being the adopted daughter of the deceased employee is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Even though such benefit was conferred on the adopted son or daughter in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulation which came into effect on 28.4.2007, as I said earlier, in view of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the petitioner shall be construed as the legal daughter of the deceased employee and she is entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 7. Therefore, the impugned proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 16.05.2011 is liable to be set aside, accordingly, set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits and accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.