JUDGMENT : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioner is an adopted son of Smt. Kamla Sharma and Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma. Smt. Kamla Sharma was serving in the office of respondent No.3 as a Class IV employee. The natural mother of the petitioner and Smt. Kamla Sharma were real sisters and since Smt. Kamla Sharma and Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma were not having any child, therefore, they adopted the petitioner while he was aged about two years. The photograph of the adoption is also adduced as Annexure-1 of the writ petition. The adoption deed was registered before the Registrar, Bansoor on 29/03/2001 and copy of that is also enclosed along with writ petition as Annexure-2. The petitioner was living with his parents after he went in adoption to them. The name of the petitioner was also mentioned in the nominee certificate of Smt. Kamla Sharma as also in the ration card issued by Gram Panchayat, Bansoor. Smt. Kamla Sharma died on 01/05/2005 during her employment with the respondent-department. The petitioner became entitled for the compassionate appointment and therefore, accordingly applied for the same. 2. An explanation was sought by the respondents regarding adoption and all the requisite proof was submitted by the petitioner to substantiate his claim as an adopted son. A question was raised regarding absence of real father of the petitioner at the time while the adoption deed was being signed. The explanation was given that the consent of the father was recorded on telephone as he was at Military Canteen at 'Siyachin Glacier' at that time and subsequently an affidavit was executed on 14/02/2006 regarding his consent for the adoption. 3. Representation was filed by the petitioner and the same was recorded by the respondents on 26/05/2009 which is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. Annexure-14 stated that adoption deed was submitted where as no other evidence was produced by the petitioner. The registered adoption deed did not contain the signatures of the natural father of the petitioner and as per Hindu Guardianship Laws, the signature of the natural father were mandatory and therefore, the adoption could not be found to be legal. It is also recorded that the affidavit was filed by the natural father on 14/02/2006 but the same has been subsequently obtained and therefore, it cannot undo the illegality that has crept in the adoption process. It is also recorded that the affidavit was filed by the natural father on 14/02/2006 but the same has been subsequently obtained and therefore, it cannot undo the illegality that has crept in the adoption process. Thus, the respondents had dismissed claim of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner. 4. The petitioner has also submitted an additional affidavit in which it has been stated that a decree issued by the competent court dt.04/08/2012 has been brought on record in which the application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was accepted by the competent civil court and the petitioner was declared as a valid successor of late Smt. Kamla Sharma and late Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma. The respondents filed a detailed reply and submitted that the adoption deed did not bear signature of the natural father and therefore, the adoption deed was patently illegal. The respondents also submitted that once the adoption deed itself was illegal, then it was not open for the petitioner to have claimed compassionate appointment. 5. Counsel for the petitioner Shri Rajendra Soni submitted that the petitioner had given the adoption deed which was registered before appropriate authority and even if there was no signature on the same on account of non-availability of the natural father, then also, the affidavit submitted by the natural father of the petitioner before the appropriate concerned authority in regarding to being natural father of the petitioner dt. 14/02/2006, cannot be disbelieved by the respondents for depriving the petitioner of his lawful right of compassionate appointment. The certificate by a competent civil court under the Indian Succession Act has also been issued under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, which is also on record. Copy of the ration card as well as copy of nomination form of Smt. Kamla Sharma are there on record. And these facts have not been refuted by the respondents. 6. Shri Dharmendra Pareek, learned Addl. Govt. Counsel for the State has categorically stated that once the adoption deed itself goes, then no other claim of the petitioner can be accepted and once there is an inherent illegality of the fathers' signatures being not there on the adoption deed, then registration of the adoption deed shall not be of any value to the petitioner. 7. Govt. Counsel for the State has categorically stated that once the adoption deed itself goes, then no other claim of the petitioner can be accepted and once there is an inherent illegality of the fathers' signatures being not there on the adoption deed, then registration of the adoption deed shall not be of any value to the petitioner. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the adoption deed was registered before the competent authority i.e.; the Registrar on 29/03/2001 and therefore, the intention of the adoption on 29/03/2001 of Smt. Kamla Sharma and Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma is absolutely clear and is well before her death on 01/05/2005. The affidavit of Shri Surajbhan issued on 14/02/2006 makes it absolutely clear that the natural father had no objection to the adoption being made. The intention is very clear from the nomination made by Smt. Kamla Sharma in her official documents and the ration card issued much before the death of Smt. Kamla Sharma. Thus, the order issued by the competent civil Court under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act also proves that the petitioner was a valid and legal successor of Smt. Kamla Devi and Shri Dinesh Chand Sharma. The affidavit dated 14/02/2006 alone is sufficient to prove adoption which can be even made by the customary modes among Hindus and therefore, the intention is absolutely clear and thus the respondents had no right to deny the status of adoption being enjoyed by the petitioner and thus giving him status of son of the deceased Smt. Kamla Sharma. 8. In light of the aforementioned facts, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26/05/2009 dispatched on 02/06/2009 is quashed & set aside and the respondents are directed to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of furnishing certified copy of this order to the respondents.