ORDER : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in Civil Suit No.222-A of 2016 wherein the application filed under Section 21 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short ‘Act of 1956’) by the appellants/plaintiffs was dismissed. The present appeal is by the plaintiffs. 2. The facts of this case are that Basanti Bai, claimed to be the wife of Late Ganesh Prakash Bhatt along with her two children Praveen Kumar (son) and Ku. Santoshi (daughter) filed an application against Ajit Kumar Bhatt, who is also one of the sons of Late Ganesh Prakash Bhatt from his marriage. Primarily, it was pleaded that Ganesh Prakash Bhatt who was working in Irrigation Department died in harness on 24.08.2013 and thereafter his son who is from Ramkali Bai, first wife of Ganesh Prakash Bhatt, was appointed on compassionate ground. According to the plaintiffs, while obtaining employment on compassionate ground, a declaration was given by Ajit Kumar Bhatt that he would maintain his another brother Praveen Kumar and sister Ku. Santoshi and will take care of his mother Ramkali Bai. It is pleaded that thereafter, after obtaining job he refused to maintain the said brother and sister. Under these circumstances, a petition u/s 21 of the Act of 1956 was filed by second wife of Ganesh Prakash Bhatt, namely, Basanti Bai along with two children Praveen Kumar (son) and Ku. Santoshi (daughter). 3. Respondent- Ajit Kumar Bhatt opposed the application and stated that maintenance under Section 21 & 22 of the Act of 1956 cannot be allowed or entertained stating several reasons. Learned Family Court dismissed the application, hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Family Court ignored the fact that employment was obtained on the ground that he would maintain his brother Praveen Kumar and sister Ku. Santoshi. After obtaining such employment, if such promise is not followed, then in such case, appellants would be rendered remedy-less. He further submits that as per letter of succession to the right of the estate of the deceased, 1/4th was recognized by the Court, i.e., in respect of Ramkali Bai, Ajit Kumar Bhatt, Praveen Kumar and Ku. Santoshi. Santoshi. After obtaining such employment, if such promise is not followed, then in such case, appellants would be rendered remedy-less. He further submits that as per letter of succession to the right of the estate of the deceased, 1/4th was recognized by the Court, i.e., in respect of Ramkali Bai, Ajit Kumar Bhatt, Praveen Kumar and Ku. Santoshi. Therefore, their right having been recognized, they were entitled to get the benefit when the employment was given on the basis of compensate ground and the Family Court has failed to appreciate these facts. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that application under Section 21 of the Act of 1956 would not lie inasmuch as the appointment obtained on compassionate ground under the Scheme would not be within the definition of estate. He further submits that even otherwise, Appellants No.2 & 3 Praveen Kumar and Ku. Santoshi have attained the age of majority and in respect of Basanti Bai, the status would be of concubine wife, consequently, dismissal of the application by the Family Court is well merited, which do not call for any interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records of the court below. 7. The admitted facts in this case are that Ganesh Prakash Bhatt, who was working in Irrigation Department as Chowkidar, died in harness on 24.08.2013. Ganesh Prakash Bhatt was first married to Ramkali Bai and out of their wedlock, Ajit Kumar Bhatt was born, who is respondent herein. Ganesh Prakash Bhatt has performed second marriage with Basanti Bai and out of their wedlock, Praveen Kumar and Ku. Basanti were born, who are appellants No.2 & 3 in this appeal. 8. In admitted relation inter-se between the parties, document Ex.P/2, which is a succession certificate would show that after death of Ganesh Prakash Bhatt, a succession certificate was issued in favour of Ramkali Bai, Ajit Kumar Bhatt (respondents herein), Praveen Kumar (appellant No.2) and Ku. Santoshi (appellant No.3) whereby all those persons were held to be legal heirs of deceased Ganesh Prakash Bhatt and were given equal shares to the retiral dues to the extent of 1/4th. The status of Basanti Bai was not recognized, but legitimacy of children, namely Praveen Kumar and Ku. Santoshi was held to be valid. Santoshi (appellant No.3) whereby all those persons were held to be legal heirs of deceased Ganesh Prakash Bhatt and were given equal shares to the retiral dues to the extent of 1/4th. The status of Basanti Bai was not recognized, but legitimacy of children, namely Praveen Kumar and Ku. Santoshi was held to be valid. The law is well settled that even the illegitimate children are entitled to succession in the properties of the deceased parents. This legal proposition is clear from various provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short “Act of 1955”) more particularly Section 16 which contains a legal fiction. It is by rule of fictio juris that the legislature has provided that children, though illegitimate, shall, nevertheless, be treated as legitimate notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable. Therefore, status of appellant No.1 to claim the right in the estate cannot be deliberated upon in this appeal. 9. Now the controversy in the instant dispute arose when respondent Ajit Kumar Bhatt was appointed by way of compassionate appointment on account of death of deceased father Ganesh Prakash Bhatt. The affidavit Ex.P/4 and contents of compassionate appointment letter purport that compassionate appointment was subject to condition that he would maintain dependents of deceased and the affidavit particularly contains that he would maintain his mother Ramkali Bai, brother Praveen Kumar and sister Ku. Santoshi. 10. The question that falls for consideration is as to whether provisions of Section 22 of the Act of 1956 can be invoked to claim maintenance. For the sake of brevity, Section 22 of the Act of 1956 is reproduced below : “22. Maintenance of Dependants,-- (1). Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) the heirs of a deceased Hindu are bound to maintain the dependents of the deceased out of the estate inherited by them from the deceased. 2. Whether a dependent has not obtained, by testamentary or interstate-succession, any share in the estate of a Hindu dying after the commencement of this Act, the dependent shall be entitled, subject to the provisions of this Act, to maintenance from those who take the estate. 3. The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her. 4. 3. The liability of each of the persons who takes the estate shall be in proportion to the value of the share or part of the estate taken by him or her. 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) or sub-section (3), no person who is himself or herself a dependent shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of others, if he or she has obtained a share or part, the value of which is, or would, if the liability to contribute were enforced, become less than what would be awarded to him or her by way of maintenance under this Act.” 11. Section 21 of the Act of 1955 defines dependent. Primary reading of it would show that brother and sister were not included in that. In the instant case, the application is not by her mother Ramkali Bai, the mother for maintenance. Compassionate appointment is an attribute of public employment. It is a welfare scheme of State and other instrumentalities of the State in modern times that upon death of an employee, one of the dependents of the deceased is granted compassionate appointment, the object being to help the family and provide support to it. The source of compassionate appointment is wholly unconnected with the obligation statutory or otherwise arising under personal laws. Therefore, where one of the members in the family gets compassionate appointment after death of the earning member, that he gets because of a scheme of public employment. Therefore, whatever earnings are made by way of salary or other benefits flowing from employment cannot be treated as “estate” inherited from the deceased, as mentioned in section 22 of the Act of 1956. This being a proposition of law has been followed by this Court in case of Smt. Krishna Bai Versus Mrs. Priya Thakre FAM No.229 of 2019 decided on 24.02.2020. 12. In view of above discussion, the findings arrived at by the learned Family Court do not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. Before we part with the case, it is observed that appellants may not be remedy-less and may seek remedy in appropriate forum to ensure their right, which is guaranteed while granting the compassionate appointment in specific form.