ORDER : 1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “1. The order impugned dated 27.10.2016 (Annex.4) issued by the respondents rejecting petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment may kindly be quashed and set aside. 2. The respondents may be directed to grant appointment to petitioner on compassionate ground on the post commensurate to his qualification. 3. Any other appropriate order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of Petitioner. 4. Allow cost of the writ petition to the Petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of this case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the adopted son of Late Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant) and his wife Smt. Heero Devi, and that, an adoption deed was executed in the office of Sub-Registrar concerned on 06.07.2016. The petitioner’s father Shri Jogaram (deceased government servant) was working as Vehicle Driver in the Office of Assistant Engineer (T&C), R.R.V.P.N. Ltd., Barmer, and while in service, he expired on 15.07.2016, leaving behind him, his widow Smt. Heero Devi and his adopted son (the present petitioner). 2.1 The petitioner moved an application on 07.09.2016 alongwith affidavit of Smt. Heero Devi (mother of the petitioner) w/o Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant), before the respondents, for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment. The respondents rejected the said application vide the impugned order dated 27.10.2016, while informing the petitioner’s mother that the petitioner was not eligible to be adopted in terms of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’); thus, on the said ground, the petitioner was denied the compassionate appointment. 2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted a suit before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Barmer seeking a declaration to the effect of the petitioner being the of Late Sh. Jogaram name be mutated in the revenue record with respect to the land of Sh. Jogaram and also to direct the RRVPNL to provide to the petitioner the entire service benefits, which were admissible to his Late father. Jogaram name be mutated in the revenue record with respect to the land of Sh. Jogaram and also to direct the RRVPNL to provide to the petitioner the entire service benefits, which were admissible to his Late father. The learned Civil Judge, Barmer vide its judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 partly allowed the suit, only to the extent of declaration that the petitioner is the legally and validly adopted son of the deceased government servant and his wife, on the strength of the registered adoption deed dated 06.07.2016. 2.3. After passing of the aforementioned judgment and decree by the learned court, the petitioner again filed an application before the respondent-Department on 11.04.2018 seeking compassionate appointment, whereupon the respondents, though, after accepting the application, made an endorsement of receipt on the application, but thereafter, the said endorsement was cancelled; whereafter no communication was received by the petitioner, from the side of the respondents. 2.4 On 21.08.2018, the petitioner filed another application for compassionate appointment, but no reply or communication was received by him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rejection of application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is contrary to Regulation 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Compassionate Appointment of Dependent of Deceased Nigam Servant Regulations, 2016, which contains definition of ‘dependant’, to mean a spouse, son, unmarried or widowed daughter and legally adopted son. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits the learned Civil Judge vide its judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 had already declared the petitioner to be the legally adopted son of Late Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant) and his wife; thus, the action of the respondents in rejecting the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment, without taking into due consideration the financial distress in the family, on count of sad demise of the sole bread earner, is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, the respondents have also not released the duly admissible benefits, arising out of the services rendered by the petitioner’s deceased father. 5. Furthermore, as per learned counsel, the respondents have also not released the duly admissible benefits, arising out of the services rendered by the petitioner’s deceased father. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that as per Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act, unless and until it is disproved; and therefore, the petitioner’s adoption is covered under the said provision. 5.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of such submission, relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mst. Deu & Ors. Vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors. (1998) 8 SCC 701 ; relevant portion whereof, as relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, reads as under : “3. In view of Section 16 aforesaid whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the persons mentioned therein, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of the said Act unless and until it is disproved. According to us, it was not open to the defendants of the said suit for partition to collaterally challenge the said registered deed of partition. In view of Section 16 of the aforesaid Act it was open to them to disprove such deed of adoption but for that they had to take independent proceeding. The High Court was fully justified in directing that the respondent be substituted in place of Smt. Phulla on the basis of the registered deed of adoption produced before the court.” 6. The High Court was fully justified in directing that the respondent be substituted in place of Smt. Phulla on the basis of the registered deed of adoption produced before the court.” 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the adoption deed has been registered on 06.07.2016, while the deceased government servant passed away on 15.07.2016; the execution and registration of such deed is doubtful, as there was no legal inheritor or son or adopted son of the deceased government servant, but just nine days prior to the death of the government servant, the adoption deed, as stated on behalf of the petitioner, was executed and registered. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the provisions of Section 10 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 has not been completely complied with, while executing and registering the adoption deed in question, and therefore, such deed cannot be held to be valid and legal. 8. In his rejoinder arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was living with Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant) and his name was entered as a family member in Ration Card of Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant) from 2004 onwards. He further submits that in the Job Card as issued under MNREGA Scheme of the Government of Rajasthan also, the petitioner’s father was mentioned as Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant). 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 10. This Court finds that the petitioner’s name was included in Ration Card (Annexure-9) at the time when the petitioner was 11 years old, as mentioned in the said document, and thus, he was living with Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant) and his wife, in the year 2004. This Court further finds that the adoption deed was executed on 06.07.2016 at the office of concerned Sub-Registrar; the declaration as to the legality and validity of the said adoption deed was made by the learned Civil Judge vide order the aforementioned judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is the legally adopted son of the deceased government servant and his wife, as mentioned in adopted deed dated 06.07.2016. 11. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is the legally adopted son of the deceased government servant and his wife, as mentioned in adopted deed dated 06.07.2016. 11. This Court observes that a notification dated 28.10.2021 came to be issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, notifying the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants (Amendment) Rules, 2021. The said notification reflects amendment in Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996; the said amended Rule 2 reads as follows : “2. Amendment of rule 2.-the existing clause (c) of rule 2 of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules 1966 shall be substituted by the following, namely :- (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.” 12. This Court also observes that Section 2 Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment Of Dependents Of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996 (Amendment 2021) provides that the term ‘son’ includes a son legally adopted by the deceased Government servant during his/her life time, and therefore, the present petitioner being the legally and validity adopted son of the deceased government servant and his wife, which has also been duly recorded by the learned Civil Judge in its judgment and decree dated on 17.03.2018, the present petitioner clearly falls within the ambit of the meaning of the term ‘Dependent’. 13. This Court further observes that the presumption, as to registered documents relating to adoption, under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is that ‘Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved. 13.1 In the present case, the respondents failed to produce before the learned court, any document, so as to create any shadow of doubt over the registered adoption deed, whereby the present petitioner was adopted, by the deceased government servant and his wife. Such factual and legal aspect of the matter has also been recorded in the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2018 passed by the learned court. 14. In the present adjudication, this Court takes, in particular, note of the fact, which the respondents could not refute, that the petitioner is the adopted son of Late Sh. Jogaram (deceased government servant) and his wife Smt. Heero Devi, and that, an adoption deed was office of Sub-Registrar concerned on (deceased government servant) was working as Vehicle Driver in the Office of Assistant Engineer (T&C), R.R.V.P.N. Ltd., Barmer, and while in service, he expired on 15.07.2016, leaving behind him, his widow Smt. Heero Devi and his adopted son (the present petitioner). 15. Thus, as an upshot of the above discussion, and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, the present petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 (Annexure -4) is quashed and set aside; accordingly, the respondents are directed to grant compassionate appointment prospectively, to the petitioner on the appropriate post commensurate to his qualification, while the retiral benefits (if any, accruing out of the services rendered by the deceased government servant) be released within a period of three months from today, strictly in accordance with law. All pending applications stand disposed of.