JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved of rejection of their claim by the impugned order dated 27.07.2016, the petitioners have approached this Court. 2. Petitioner no.1 is widow of the deceased employee namely, late Rajendra Routh, who was employed as driver-cum-mechanic under the respondent-CCL. He died in harness on 05.05.2008. After his death, on 23.06.2008 the widow submitted an application for compassionate appointment to petitioner no.2, whom she claimed as her son. For verifying genuineness of this claim, a committee was constituted which gave its report on 05.12.2008. Before the committee the petitioner no.1 appeared and made a statement that she has no son or daughter. She revealed that petitioner no.2 is, in-fact, younger brother of her husband. When compassionate appointment to petitioner no.2 was not offered, the petitioners came to this Court in W.P.(S) No.807 of 2015. Before the writ Court, the enquiry report dated 05.12.2008 was produced by the respondent-CCL. Sada adoption deed allegedly adopting petitioner no.2 was also produced before the Court. The writ petition stood disposed of by an order dated 24.11.2015 with a direction to the respondents to take a final decision in the matter upon consideration of the relevant materials. Claim of the petitioners has been declined by order dated 27.07.2016. This is the order which has been impugned in the present proceeding. 3. A counter-affidavit justifying rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment has been filed by the resopondent M/s CCL. 4. The admitted position emerging from the record of the case would disclose that name of petitioner no.2 is mentioned in the service excerpt of the deceased employee, which was prepared in the year, 1987. It is also a matter of record that in LTC form submitted by the deceased employee, petitioner no.2 has been shown as his son. In the year, 1987 petitioner no.2 was aged about six years. Now, it has been admitted by the petitioners that petitioner no.2 is, in-fact, younger brother of the deceased employee. 5. The plea, that the petitioner no.1 submitted application for compassionate appointment on a false plea showing petitioner no.2 as her son and on that ground alone the application was liable to be rejected, in the above facts does not survive. It was not an act of petitioner no.2 nor he could have played any role when he was described as son of the deceased employee. It was not an act of petitioner no.2 nor he could have played any role when he was described as son of the deceased employee. The service excerpt could not have been prepared with the consent of petitioner no.2, who was aged only about six years at that time. For a mistake committed by the employee during his lifetime, claim for compassionate appointment, in my opinion, cannot be declined. No doubt, petitioner no.1 had knowledge of the real fact which she accepted before the committee, but when status of petitioner no.2 was ascertained, application for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected on the ground of raising a false plea. Actual fact was ascertained before a decision in the matter was taken. Insofar as, genuineness of Sada adoption deed is concerned, claim of the petitioner has not been declined on the ground that it is a forged and fabricated document. Once it is admitted that petitioner no.2 is brother of the deceased employee, this deed of adoption looses relevance. Under the scheme, a brother can also lay a claim for compassionate appointment. Reliance on decision in “Chairman, Bihar Rajya Vidyut Board Vs. Chhathu Ram and Ors.” reported in (1999) 5 SCC 673 does not lend support to the impugned order dated 27.07.2016. In the said case, High Court proceeded in the matter on a presumption that adoption deed produced by dependant of the deceased employee was genuine. Holding that presumption under section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is not attracted in the case, the Supreme Court found the order granting compassionate appointment unsustainable. Facts pleaded in the present case are entirely different from the facts in Chhathu Ram case. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, the learned counsel for the respondent M/s CCL has tried to contend that petitioner no.1 being wife of the deceased employee could not have adopted petitioner no.2 as her son and, thus, claim for compassionate appointment is a claim based on a forged document. As noticed above, it is not a finding recorded by the respondent authority that Sada adoption deed dated 15.07.1989 is a forged deed, and it has not been shown that, in law, such adoption is not permissible. Petitioner no.2 was brought up by petitioner no.1 and her husband just like their son, as would appear from the service record of the deceased employee. 6. Petitioner no.2 was brought up by petitioner no.1 and her husband just like their son, as would appear from the service record of the deceased employee. 6. Another ground for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment is, that petitioner no.2 was not wholly dependant on the deceased employee. The fact that from his very infancy, petitioner no.2 was staying with the employee, a fact recorded in the year, 1987, amply demonstrates that petitioner no.2 was wholly dependant on the employee. The respondent authority, taking note of the statement of petitioner no.1 that she is dependant on petitioner no.2, has arrived at the conclusion that petitioner no.2 was not wholly dependant on the employee. This is an error committed by the respondent authority. For seeking compassionate appointment, a widow who has no son or daughter would obviously write that she is dependant on petitioner no.2, who if granted compassionate appointment, would take care of her. Strangely enough, while rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment the respondent-authority has held that when petitioner no.1 herself can lay a claim for compassionate appointment under the provisions of NCWA, claim on behalf of the respondent no.2 cannot be entertained. This is in ignorance of the fact that admittedly at the time of the death of her husband, petitioner no.1 had crossed the age of 45 years. An enquiry report was submitted on 05.12.2008, however, the respondent M/s CCL did not inform her or rejected application dated 23.06.2008 on the ground that claim for compassionate appointment to petitioner no.2 is not maintainable. Had this course of action been adopted by the respondents, petitioner no.1 would have taken appropriate steps in the matter. The respondents never offered monetary compensation, to which she was entitled from one month after the date of application, that is, 23.06.2008. And, it would be appropriate to note that provision for monetary compensation under NCWA is optional for the female dependant of the deceased employee and on grant of compassionate appointment to the male dependant, it is discontinued. 7. Viewed thus, the impugned order dated 27.07.2016 is found unsustainable in law and accordingly, it is quashed. Writ petition stands allowed. Within six weeks, the respondents shall issue notice to petitioner no.2 for producing necessary documents and for medical examination, for his appointment.