ORDER : 1. This Civil Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, claiming the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction the impugned order dated 1.10.2010 (Annex.9) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on a suitable and appropriate post considering his educational qualifications, on compassionate ground under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 with effect from date of his submission of application with all consequential benefits. Any other order favourable to the petitioner may also be passed.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that Late Smt. Maina Devi, maternal grandmother of the petitioner, died on 21.05.1999, while she was in service as Principal at Government Senior Secondary School, Sri Ganganagar. And that, after the death of Smt. Maina Devi, the petitioner was receiving family pension, and her service dues were also paid to the petitioner. And that she had adopted the petitioner by way of a registered adoption deed, dated 20.02.1999 (at Annex-1), when he was aged about 8 years; and therefore, being a minor, could not be considered for the grant of compassionate appointment, and hence, ineligible. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the natural mother of the petitioner, Smt. Saroj Devi W/o Ratan Lal, submitted an application, dated 09.06.1999, before the respondent no.2-District Education Officer, requesting therein that since the petitioner was a minor at the time of the death of Smt. Maina Devi, the grant of compassionate appointment, be kept pending till the petitioner attains the age of majority. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the respondent no.2-authority vide the reply, dated 07.08.2022, stated that such claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner cannot be kept pending. And that Smt. Saroj Devi preferred a subsequent application on behalf of the petitioner, stating therein that the petitioner being the adopted and only son of Late Smt. Maina Devi, was her sole surviving heir, and that if his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be kept pending, then she be appointed instead. 5. And that Smt. Saroj Devi preferred a subsequent application on behalf of the petitioner, stating therein that the petitioner being the adopted and only son of Late Smt. Maina Devi, was her sole surviving heir, and that if his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be kept pending, then she be appointed instead. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner upon attaining the age of majority and possessing the requisite qualifications, preferred an application, dated 05.05.2008, before the respondent no.3, and sought compassionate appointment. And that upon receipt of such application, the respondent no.3 forwarded the same to the respondent no.2; who thereafter, vide letter, dated 28.05.2008, sought certain information from the respondent no.3 pertaining to the aforementioned application. And that, the information was accordingly supplied vide letter dated 26.02.2010. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that the respondent no.2 vide letter, dated 01.10.2010, rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not the adopted son of the Late Smt. Maina Devi in accordance with the law contained in Section 8(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and that the name of his natural mother was in fact reflected in his mark-sheets, and that he was therefore ineligible under Rule 10 (3) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996. 6.1 That upon receipt of such reply, despite having a valid and registered adoption deed, the petitioner filed a suit before the competent Court on 20.10.2010 and sought a declaration to the effect that he was the adopted son of the Late Smt. Maina Devi in accordance with the law, and sought to substitute the name of Late Smt. Maina Devi in the place of the name of his natural mother in his mark-sheets. And that, the said suit was accordingly decreed in his favour vide judgment dated 17.12.2014. And thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application, dated 18.05.2015, before the respondent no.2 seeking compassionate appointment, stating therein that he is the validly adopted son of Late Smt. Maina Devi and that he had attained the age of majority and possessed the requisite qualifications for the same. That upon not receiving any reply to the same, the petitioner preferred another application, dated 06.07.2015, reiterating the same. That upon not receiving any reply to the same, the petitioner preferred another application, dated 06.07.2015, reiterating the same. And that, lastly, he served a notice for demand of justice, dated 14.08.2015, to the same effect. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment, as claimed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that such claim of the petitioner could not be kept pending till the date the petitioner attained the age of majority, and that the same is without any statutory basis, and was therefore rightly rejected. Furthermore, such an information was already conveyed to Smt. Saroj Devi, the natural mother of the present petitioner, in the year 2002 itself, vide letter dated 07.08.2002, and that the present petition has been preferred despite the same, after a lapse of about 13 years. 8.1 And that another request was also made by the petitioner’s natural mother, that in the alternate, the deceased’s daughter be given compassionate appointment, was also turned down as the same was outside the jurisdiction of the respondent no.2. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that with regard to the application preferred by the petitioner, the respondents, vide letter dated 01.10.2010 (at Annex.-9) informed that the claim has been raised after a delay of 11 years and for the additional reason that the documents of the petitioner did not contain the name of the Late Smt. Maina Devi. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that with regard to the declaration suit decreed in favour of the petitioner in the year 2010, the same cannot be a valid ground to grant the petitioner compassionate appointment, as the deceased passed away in the year 1999. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Institute of Technology and Ors. v. Niraj Kumar Singh (Appeal (Civil) 429/2007) decided on 02.02.2007 and submitted that there cannot be any scope for granting the petitioner compassionate appointment after 18 years have been passed since the death of Late Smt. Maina Devi. v. Niraj Kumar Singh (Appeal (Civil) 429/2007) decided on 02.02.2007 and submitted that there cannot be any scope for granting the petitioner compassionate appointment after 18 years have been passed since the death of Late Smt. Maina Devi. For the sake of brevity, the relevant portion of the said judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel is reproduced hereunder:- “All public appointments must be in consonance with Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Exceptions carved out therefore are the cases where appointments are to be given to the widow or the dependent children of the employee who died in harness. Such an exception is carved out with a view to see that the family of the deceased employee who has died in harness does not become a destitute. No appointment, therefore, on compassionate ground can be granted to a person other than those for whose benefit the exception has been carved out. Other family members of the deceased employee would not derive any benefit thereunder.” 12. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner supplanting his primary submissions, submits that there has been no delay on the part of the petitioner as due representation was made by way of multiple applications preferred on his behalf, before the respondent-authorities. And that Smt. Maina Devi passed away on 21.05.1999 and the application was filed on the petitioner’s behalf on 09.06.1999, within one month. And that, the petitioner preferred an application before the respondent-authority, four months from the date of his attaining the age of majority, and in that in the interim, as already stated hereinabove, multiple applications were preferred on his behalf before the respondents. 13. Heard learned counsel for both parties and, perused the record of the case as well as the judgment cited at the Bar. 14. In view of the facts already narrated hereinabove, this Court finds that the petitioner has been declared to be the adopted son of the deceased person i.e. Late Smt. Maina Devi by a competent Court vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2014; and his marksheets/documents have been accordingly updated. The registered adoption deed is also on the record, at Annex.-1. The same therefore, does not require any further consideration by this Court. 15. The registered adoption deed is also on the record, at Annex.-1. The same therefore, does not require any further consideration by this Court. 15. The record reveals that the applications on behalf of, and by the petitioner were preferred within due time, and cannot be said to have been preferred at a belated or delayed stage. 16. However, the short question that comes up for consideration before before this Court is whether the present petitioner, being the minor son of the deceased Smt. Maina Devi at the time of her death, is eligible for the grant of compassionate appointment, upon attaining the age of majority and possessing the requisite qualifications for the same, after 9 years have elapsed (Smt. Maina Devi passed away on 1999 and the petitioner attained majority in 2008). 16.1 In this regard, this Court observes that the initial application for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner was submitted within one month from the date of death of the deceased government servant i.e. Late Smt. Maina Devi, and that, upon the status of his being the son of Late Smt. Maina Devi was questioned by the respondents-authorities, he approached the competent court, by filing a suit, whereupon, as mentioned above, the learned court decreed the suit in his favour, thereby setting at rest, the controversy in regard thereto; that apart, multiple applications were also preferred by and on behalf of the petitioner. Thus, though the present petition has been preferred in the year 2016 i.e. after 17 years from the date of death of Smt. Maina Devi in the year 1999, but looking into the peculiar factual matrix of the case, the same cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the petitioner, as the lapse of the said period cannot be termed as ‘delay’ in the strict sense, more particularly, owing to the efforts being made by him and on his behalf, in the intervening period. 17. 17. This Court also observes that a similar question came up for consideration before the Hon’ble High Court of Meghalaya in the case of Shri Dhaneswar Medhi v. The Union of India (WP(C) No. 222 of 2017) decided on 03.02.2021; wherein the Hon’ble High Court while observing that there was a delay on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the matter both at the level of the respondents-department and also in approaching the Hon’ble High Court, which could not be overlooked and that the petitioner failed to make out any case for issuance of any direction or for any interference by the Hon’ble High Court. However, the said case is distinguished from the instant case, as there is no delay on the part of the petitioner whatsoever. 18. The relevant provisions of law contained in the Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Service Rules, 1996, as amended by the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants (Amendment) Rules, 2021 are reproduced as hereunder:- 2. Definitions – In these rules unless the context other wise requires :- (c) "Dependent" means,- (i) Spouse, or (ii) son including son legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iii) unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter including daughter legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, or (iv) married daughter, if no other dependent of the deceased Government servant mentioned in clause (ii) and (iii) above is available, or (v) mother, father, unmarried brother or unmarried sister in case of unmarried deceased Government servant, who was wholly dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his/her death. 10. Procedure – (1) On the death of a Government servant the surviving spouse shall apply for appointment for self or for any other dependant. (2) Where the deceased Government servant is not survived by a spouse the application shall be made by one of the dependants of the deceased Government servant and other dependants shall have to give their consent for his/her candidature. Provided that if more than one of the dependants seek employment, the Head of Department shall select one, keeping in view the overall interest and welfare of the entire family, particularly the minor members. Provided that if more than one of the dependants seek employment, the Head of Department shall select one, keeping in view the overall interest and welfare of the entire family, particularly the minor members. (3) Such application shall be made to the Head of the Office/Department in the Performa attached as Annexure-A to these rules, within a period of 90 days from the date of death of the Government servant. The applicant shall submit an affidavit in support of monthly income (from all sources) of all the family members mentioned in Column No.7 of part-I of the application. Provided that in an exceptional case where the state Government in the Department of Personnel is satisfied that the operation of provisions of this subrule causes financial hardship to the family of the deceased Government servant and considers it necessary or expedient to relax the provisions of this sub-rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (4) In cases of All India Services, Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Accounts Service, Rajasthan Legal State and Subordinate Service and the Rajasthan Economics & Statistical Service etc. where officers are posted in different departments of Government, the application shall be made to the Administrative Department controlling that service through the Head of Department/ Head of Office where the deceased Government servant was posted at the time of his/her death. (5) It shall be the responsibility of the Head of the Department/Head of the Office, as the case may be, to give appointment to the dependants as far as possible in his own department. (6) In case suitable post is not vacant but some post in lower scale is available immediately, such lower post can be offered to the applicant on first come first serve basis and the applicant shall have the option either to wait for the post applied for or to accepts the lower available post. In case the applicant accepts the lower available post, he/ she shall lose his/her claim for higher post applied for and his/her claim will not be kept on waiting list. In case the applicant accepts the lower available post, he/ she shall lose his/her claim for higher post applied for and his/her claim will not be kept on waiting list. Provided that if there is no vacant post available in the department in which the deceased Government servant was working then the matter shall be referred to DOP immediately duly support by cogent reasons and DOP shall provide appointment in some other department. Substituted for "Such application shall be made in the performa attached as Annexure-A to the Head of the Office/Department within a period of three months from the date of death of the Government servant. The applicant shall submit an affidavit in support of monthly income (from all sources) of the entire family members mentioned in Column No.7 of the prescribed application. Provided that where the spouse does not seek appointment for herself/himself and even the eldest of remaining dependants has not attained the age of 18 years (intimation to this effect to be given in writing within three months of the death of the Government servant), the above period of limitation shall run from the date of attaining the age of 18 years by such eldest dependant. Vide Notification No F. 5(51)/DOP/A2/88 Dated. 11-9-2002. Substituted Vide Notification No F. 5(51)/DOP/A-2/88Dated. 19-4-1999. Substituted Vide Notification No F. 5(51)/DOP/A-2/88 Dated. 19-4-1999. (7) In cases of death of members of the services having State cadre like All India Services, Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Secretariat Service, controlled by Department of Personnel, the application shall lie to the Secretary, Department of Personnel and it shall be the responsibility of Department of Personnel to arrange for a suitable post. 19. This Court, looking into the aforementioned Rules of 1996 and the factual matrix of the present case, is inclined to partly allow the present petition. 20. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 01.10.2010, is quashed and set aside, with a direction to the respondents to consider application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh, strictly in accordance with law, more particularly, the prescription of Rule 10 Clause (3) of the Rules of 1996, as quoted hereinabove; and thereafter, if the respondents come to a conclusion that the petitioner fulfills the requisite criteria, he shall be given compassionate appointment, prospectively, on the post commensurate to his qualification. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 21. The present petition accordingly stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. All pending applications stand disposed of.