ORDER : This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby respondent's application for grant of compassionate appointment has been allowed. 2. The necessary facts of the appeal are that the respondent claiming himself to be adopted son of Late Joga Ram (deceased Govt. Servant) and his wife Smt. Heero Devi applied for compassionate appointment on 07.09.2016. However, the application was rejected on the ground that the respondent-petitioner was not eligible to be adopted in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The respondent - petitioner thereafter filed a suit seeking a declaratory decree of his legal status as adopted son. There were many reliefs also sought against the present appellants. The suit was partly decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018. Though, the learned trial court declared the legal status of the respondent writ petitioner as the legally adopted son of deceased - Joga Ram but the relief sought against the present appellants was not granted. When he again applied for grant of compassionate appointment, no order was passed. 3. On the strength of the declaratory decree of legal status as the legally adopted son of deceased Joga Ram, application for compassionate appointment was filed, which was again rejected giving rise to writ petition. 4. Learned Single Judge while taking into consideration that the respondent enjoyed the legal status of adopted son of deceased Govt. Servant - Joga Ram, allowed the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants would argue that the decree passed by the Civil Court is not binding on them because there were not party. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that though in the suit, reliefs were sought against the present appellants directing all the benefits to be granted to the respondent-writ petitioner (plaintiff in the suit), but those reliefs were rejected and, therefore, were not open for the respondent-petitioner to raise a claim for compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the respondent-petitioner's claim that he is validly adopted son of deceased - Joga Ram, is false, as in various certificates viz. OBC, matriculation, graduation and police verification, the respondent-petitioner mentioned the name of his biological father and not adoptive father. 7. We have gone through the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 passed by the trial court. OBC, matriculation, graduation and police verification, the respondent-petitioner mentioned the name of his biological father and not adoptive father. 7. We have gone through the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 passed by the trial court. We find that the plaintiff in his plaint sought declaratory relief of his legal status as legally adopted son of deceased Joga Ram. He also prayed for other reliefs against the present appellants, though the present appellants were not impleaded as party in the said suit. 8. Learned trial court while granting declaratory decree of legal status, rejected other prayers for the reason that the suit qua other reliefs were found bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Nevertheless, declaratory decree of the legal status was not challenged by anyone. 9. Once declaration of a legal status is granted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, unless avoided through appropriate legal proceedings, the declaratory decree shall remain operative and in force. True it is that the appellants were not party in the said suit but for obtaining a declaratory decree of legal status, it was not necessary to implead the appellants as party. The reliefs sought directly against the appellants were rejected by the trial court because the appellants were not party in the civil suit but that would not denude the trial court of its jurisdiction to grant a declaratory decree of legal status that the respondent-petitioner was the legally adopted son of deceased - Joga Ram. 10. Though, learned counsel for the appellants sought to dispute the correctness of the declaratory decree in favour of the respondent stating that such decree could not be granted, we are of the view that present is not a forum where the correctness, legality or validity of the decree could be raised. 11. In view of the above, we are not inclined to interfere in the order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present appeal is dismissed accordingly.