JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, learned standing counsel for State-respondent No. 1 and Sri Ayank Mishra, appearing for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4. Perused the record. 2. This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2014 passed in writ petition No. 63847 of 2014: Rakesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, by which writ Court has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant-petitioner holding that claim of the petitioner on the basis of decree of Civil Court cannot be entertained under the Rules holding the field; that on the basis of Civil Court decree, the petitioner can claim other benefits but not compassionate appointment as he has failed to show that he was a family member dependent on the deceased employee during his life time. 3. Brief facts culled out from the record are that petitioner/appellant claims to be adopted son of the deceased employee, namely, Barasati Lal, working on the post of peon in the office of Kanpur Power Corporation (Distribution), Pacchimanchal Vidyut Vitran Khand Kanpur, respondent No. 2, who died on 31.3.2006; that the appellant was adopted by Barasati Lal on 18.2.1999 but the adoption deed was prepared on 9.10.2007 by his mother, wife of late Barasati Lal. The petitioner/appellant then filed an application dated 23.10.2007 before the department for compassionate appointment and also a declaratory suit being O.S. No. 1015 of 2008 for declaration of adoption deed as valid deed. The suit was decreed on 9.1.2014 and the petitioner/appellant was declared adopted son of the deceased employee. Subsequently, on the basis of the decree of Civil Court, petitioner/appellant filed another representation dated 26.8.2014 for compassionate appointment, but his request was not accepted, hence he filed writ petition which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by said order, petitioner has come up in this special appeal. 4. Subsequently, on the basis of the decree of Civil Court, petitioner/appellant filed another representation dated 26.8.2014 for compassionate appointment, but his request was not accepted, hence he filed writ petition which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by said order, petitioner has come up in this special appeal. 4. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the writ Court has not considered the fact that the decree declaring the appellant to be adopted son has not been turned down as of today; that the definition of family as given in the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-harness) Rules, 1974 has not been considered; that the writ Court without exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits has decided the issue on merits, while writ Court has relied on certain documents as supplied by learned counsel for the respondents; that writ Court has misinterpreted the provisions of Rules of 1975 as has been amended and adopted son has been brought in the definition of family. 5. In the supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the appellant, it has been stated that the appellant is the adopted son of Late Barsati Lal; that Late Barsati Lal was having immovable property of around 2 bighas of agricultural land situated in District Amethi and that 2 bighas of land was transferred by the deceased employee in the name of her daughter, Smt. Neelam Devi; that the deceased employee was not having any constructed house either in Kanpur or in his ancestral village. It is further stated that the appellant completed his Class XII in the year 2004 and since the deceased employee use to be ill, therefore, for perusing his studies the appellant use to work in Sahara Company on commission basis; that since the condition of the family of the appellant was very weak, he managed to get private job and after completing his post graduation in the year 2009 he managed to work through a contractor on daily wages basis earning Rs. 200/- per day. It is also stated that wife of deceased employee Smt. Ganga Devi is getting Rs. 11,000/- per month as pension and the appellant by earnings has got deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- per day. It is also stated that wife of deceased employee Smt. Ganga Devi is getting Rs. 11,000/- per month as pension and the appellant by earnings has got deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fixed deposit and 3 life insurance policy which he managed to get deposited through the pension of Smt. Ganga Devi; that the appellant got married on 8th November, 2012 and since then he is managing to take care of the entire family. 6. Per contra, Sri Ayank Mishra, appearing for respondents No. 2 to 4 has placed reliance upon a copy of Form-F for nomination of gratuity filled by the deceased employee which indicates that he has nominated his wife Smt. Ganga Devi and Smt. Leelam Devi his daughter each for payment of 50% of dues. He further submits that after the death of her husband, Smt. Ganga Devi wife of deceased moved an application for payment of family pension and gratuity to her. Accordingly, pension was paid to Smt. Ganga Devi and Smt. Leelam Devi who were described as family members of the deceased employee. The application of the appellant for compassionate appointment was not considered as he was not dependent family member of the deceased employee. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of another nomination form stated to be filled by the deceased employee Barasati Lal, wherein Smt. Ganga Devi along with Rakesh Kumar (appellant) and Rajesh Kumar both sons of the daughter of the deceased employee were nominated for receipt of terminal dues, claims entitlement of appellant for compassionate appointment. 8. The writ Court after appreciating the evidence on record has recorded the finding regarding non entitlement of appellant for compassionate appointment. The relevant extract of finding reads as under: “Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is found that admittedly adoption deed on the basis of which claim is made by the petitioner was prepared subsequent to death of the employee. After the said adoption deed was obtained by the petitioner, he has moved application for compassionate appointment. Moreover petitioner has not been described as family member in the nomination papers submitted by the late Barsati Lal as such he is not covered under the Rules for compassionate appointment. After the said adoption deed was obtained by the petitioner, he has moved application for compassionate appointment. Moreover petitioner has not been described as family member in the nomination papers submitted by the late Barsati Lal as such he is not covered under the Rules for compassionate appointment. Moreover in the nomination papers relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner which is of the date 11.9.2002,the relation of the petitioner has been mentioned as grandson (son of the daughter) of the deceased employee. The claim of the petitioner on the basis of decree of Civil Court cannot be entertained under the Rules holding the field. On the basis of Civil Court decree, the petitioner can claim other benefits but for compassionate appointment as he has failed to show that he was dependant family member of the deceased employee during his life time. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed.” 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, as well as certain query being made by the appellant who was present in Court along with his wife, we find from the said supplementary affidavit filed by him that the appellant is now 35 years of age and has managed not only earning of his livelihood, but managed his entire family since the deceased employee has died. 10. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that a compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right irrespective of the financial status of the family of the deceased at the time of his death. In order to provide social justice to the millions of unemployed and educated young men and women, it is necessary that the employment should be given to eligible and deserving persons. Therefore, moot question for consideration before the Court is whether the appellant is living in indigent circumstances or not and whether he is entitled for compassionate appointment in place of deceased employee. 11. Having perused the entire records as well as finding recorded by writ Court, we are of the view that it is not possible for the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take evidence and determine whether the appellant is in indigent circumstances or not? 11. Having perused the entire records as well as finding recorded by writ Court, we are of the view that it is not possible for the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to take evidence and determine whether the appellant is in indigent circumstances or not? It is for the concerned authorities to decide this factual aspect as to whether appellant is entitled for compassionate appointment or not in the facts and circumstances of the case. 12. This writ petition is finally disposed of directing the respondents to consider the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment in accordance with law. It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of the case and the question either to appoint or not appoint the appellant is left open for the concerned departmental authority who shall consider and decide the question by a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order before him. No order as to costs. ——————