JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to the respondent AVVNL to offer him appointment on compassionate basis in place of his adoptive father late Shri Radheyshyam, who died in harness while in service of the respondent AVVNL. 2. Shri Radheyshyam was serving the respondent corporation on the post of SSA. He passed away on 19.5.2008. During his lifetime, Shri Radheyshyam had adopted the petitioner and had nominated him in his service record for receiving all his post service benefits. The nomination was approved by the respondent company on 16.9.2004. Immediately after death of Shri Radheyshyam the petitioner submitted an application to the respondent AVVNL claiming appointment in place of his adoptee father on compassionate basis. Before applying, the petitioner filed an application in the court of the learned Additional District Judge No.2, Chittorgarh Camp Begun under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act. The application was allowed by order dated 11.11.2009. A succession certificate was issued in the petitioner’s favour, whereby he was declared to be Sh. Radheyshyam’s successor. However, after processing the petitioner’s application, the Assistant Engineer, AVVNL communicated him an order dated 10.1.2011 informing the petitioner that since he was not a lawfully adopted son of the deceased employee, he could not be given compassionate appointment in place of Shri Radheyshyam. Upon this, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting his application for compassionate appointment. 3. Notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents, who have filed a reply thereto. It is asserted in the reply that since the petitioner was not the lawfully adopted son of employee late Shri Radheyshyam, he cannot claim compassionate appointment in his place. It is further stated that the fact regarding the petitioner’s adoption is a disputed question of fact, which could only be decided by the Civil Court. An objection is raised that the petitioner is not possessed of a valid adoption document and therefore, is not entitled to compassionate appointment. It is also pleaded in the reply that since the petitioner has managed to carry on with his life for the last so many years, no cause survives for giving him compassionate appointment in place of his adoptive father. 4. It is also pleaded in the reply that since the petitioner has managed to carry on with his life for the last so many years, no cause survives for giving him compassionate appointment in place of his adoptive father. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court in the case of Keshar Singh v. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7356/2012 and urged that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by the ratio of the aforesaid judgment. As per him, the deceased adopted the petitioner by customary rites and ceremonies. He contended that while examining a prayer for compassionate appointment, the authorities have no jurisdiction to enter into the validity or otherwise of the documents of adoption. It is further contended that since the Civil Court has already declared the petitioner to be the adopted son of employee late Shri Radheyshyam, the respondent company’s action in rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment is totally bad in the eye of law. Learned counsel relied upon the following findings of the Civil Court and urged that the authorities acted in total disregard to the findings of the Civil Court while rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment: " 11- bl izdkj izkFkhZ dh vksj ls tks 'kgknr QkbZy ij miyC/k djkbZ xbZ gS] mlls e`rd jk/ks';ke ds dksbZ T;knk iq= ugha gksus ls izkFkhZ jkds'k dqekj dks lkekftd jhfr fjokt ds eqrkfcd xksn j[kk tkuk vkSj e`rd }kjk gh izkFkhZ dk ykyu ikyu fd;k tkuk] mldh 'kknh e`rd }kjk gh djk;k tkuk ,oa e`rd dh mijksDr fofHkUu cSadksa esa tek jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk ,d ek= mRrjkf/kdkjh izkFkhZ gh gksuk izekf.kr gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls is'k mijksDr 'kgknr ds [k.Mu esa QkbZy ij dksbZ 'kgknr ugha gS vkSj e`rd dh fofHkUu cSadksa esa tek jkf'k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ,dek= izkFkhZ gh gksuk ik;k tkrk gSA vr% e`rd dh mijksDr cSadksa esa tek jkf'k dks izkIr djus ds fy, izkFkhZ ds i{k esa mRrjkf/kdkjh izek.k i= tkjh fd;k tkuk mfpr ik;k tkrk gSA " 5. He further submitted that since the petitioner started prosecuting his cause with due diligence immediately after the death of his adoptive father, the bogie of delay cannot be utilised to throw out his claim for compassionate appointment. He further submitted that since the petitioner started prosecuting his cause with due diligence immediately after the death of his adoptive father, the bogie of delay cannot be utilised to throw out his claim for compassionate appointment. He thus prayed that the writ petition deserves to be accepted in the terms prayed for. 6. Per contra, Shri Vikram Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the question regarding the petitioner’s lawful adoption by the deceased employee Sh. Radheyshyam is a disputed question of fact. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to establish that he was ever adopted by the deceased. He further contended that the application for compassionate appointment was filed way back in the year 2008. The petitioner having survived for a period of almost 7 years cannot claim compassionate appointment at this belated stage because such appointment is not the normal mode of recruitment. It cannot be claimed as of right. It is only provided to tide over the family of the deceased from penury and financial distress. Thus, as per him, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed in the instant writ petition. 7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record. 8. The fact regarding the petitioner’s lawful and valid customary adoption by late Shri Radheyshyam is established beyond all manner of doubt from the documents placed on record of the writ petition. The employee Shri Radheyshyam himself submitted an application to the corporation during his lifetime for entering the petitioner’s name as his nominee in the capacity of an adopted son way-back in the year 2004. The respondents accepted and approved the nomination and the petitioner’s name was introduced as a nominee of Shri Radheyshyam. The Civil Court, by its judgment/decree dated 11.11.2009 (Annex.8) has declared the petitioner to be the duly adopted son of Shri Radheyshyam. Thus, the plea taken by the respondent company that the issue regarding the petitioner’s lawful adoption by the employee is a disputed question of fact is patently baseless. It is the pertinent stand of the respondents that this question can be decided by the Civil Court alone. This fact has already been concluded in the petitioner’s favour by the Civil Court as mentioned above. It is the pertinent stand of the respondents that this question can be decided by the Civil Court alone. This fact has already been concluded in the petitioner’s favour by the Civil Court as mentioned above. A controversy almost identical to the one at hand was examined by this Court in the case of Keshar Singh (supra) and it was held that the authorities have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of the adoption while considering the prayer for grant of compassionate appointment to the adopted child of the deceased. In this background, the opposition offered by the respondents to the petitioner’s claim on the ground that it has not been established that the petitioner is the legally adopted son of employee late Shri Radheyshyam has no legs to stand. 9. Now coming to the question of delay. The petitioner submitted the application for compassionate appointment within the prescribed period as per the Rules. The respondent authorities sat over his application and communicated the rejection thereof to the petitioner after a delay of nearly three years. The petitioner immediately rushed to this Court by way of the instant writ petition assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 10.1.2011, whereby his prayer for compassionate appointment was turned down. The respondents have not placed on record any material to establish that the petitioner was gainfully employed during this period. Thus, the bogie of delay, which the respondents harped upon for countenancing the petitioner’s claim cannot be allowed to frustrate the petitioner’s rightful claim for compassionate appointment in place of his adoptive father. 10. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10.1.2011 (Annex.9) is hereby declared to be illegal and is set aside. The respondents are directed to forthwith grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in place of his adoptive father on a suitable post as per applicable Rules and regulations and consonant to the petitioner’s qualifications.No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******