ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that: (a) The writ petition may kindly be allowed. (b) An appropriate writ, direction and order may be issued against the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lower division clerk on account of death of her adoptive father Hansraj S/o Parsaram who was posted as constable 419 in District Sri Ganganagar since 7.9.1975 and died due to disease on 13.9.2009 while in service within a period of two months. (c) Cost of litigation may be awarded to the petitioner. (d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of one Hansraj S/o Parsaram, who was appointed as Constable, Police Department, in the District Sri Ganganagar on 07.09.1975, whereafter, while being in service, he expired due to certain ailment on 13.09.2009. Late Hansraj was survived by his wife-Vidya Devi and the present petitioner (adopted daughter). The petitioner is possessing the qualification of senior secondary, and after the death of Hansraj, his wife Vidya Devi, i.e. the adoptive mother of the petitioner filed application seeking compassionate appointment of the present petitioner. Alongwith such application, an affidavit has also been submitted to the effect that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of Late Hansraj and his wife Vidya Devi and that the adoption deed was executed on 12.05.2005. 2.1. The learned Civil Judge, Sriganganagar, vide its judgment dated 17.09.2011 passed in Case No. 117/2010, declared that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of the deceased government servant and that such adoption was done on 12.01.2004 as per the rituals, and the adoption deed was executed on 12.05.2005, which was declared as valid. Thereafter, the Office of Administrative Officer issued a letter dated 09.07.2014 seeking certain clarification regarding the aforementioned judgment dated 17.09.2011, and thereafter, the Assistant Superintendent of Police issued a letter dated 30.12.2014 to the District Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, clarifying therein that there is no ambiguity in the aforementioned judgment, while clarifying certain other relevant things also. 2.2. Thereafter, the Office of Administrative Officer issued a letter dated 09.07.2014 seeking certain clarification regarding the aforementioned judgment dated 17.09.2011, and thereafter, the Assistant Superintendent of Police issued a letter dated 30.12.2014 to the District Superintendent of Police, Sriganganagar, clarifying therein that there is no ambiguity in the aforementioned judgment, while clarifying certain other relevant things also. 2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a legal notice dated 19.10.2015 to the concerned respondent authority in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment to her, and aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not granting her the appointment in question, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the aforementioned judgment dated 17.09.2011, whereby the learned Court has declared the petitioner’s adoption as valid, while upholding the validity of the adoption deed executed on 12.05.2005, the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased government servant for all purposes, including her entitlement for grant of the compassionate appointment in question. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that at the time of adoption in question i.e. on 12.04.2004, the petitioner was 14 years old and the adoption deed was executed on 12.05.2005. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner’s father expired while in service, and therefore, the petitioner is entitled in all respects for the compassionate appointment in question, as per the law. Learned counsel further submits that the concerned Sarpanch has also issued legal heir certificate on 05.03.2014 in favour of the petitioner. 3.2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel referred to the following orders passed by this Hon’ble Court: (a) Kuldeep Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16177/2017, decided on 08.12.2023 (b) Manoj Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan and Another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16073/2019, decided on 24.08.2023 4. 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 deceased government servant expired on 13.09.2009, but he did not adopt the petitioner during his lifetime, and therefore, the legal heir certificate as issued by the Sarpanch on 05.03.2014 is of no consequence. 4.1. 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 deceased government servant expired on 13.09.2009, but he did not adopt the petitioner during his lifetime, and therefore, the legal heir certificate as issued by the Sarpanch on 05.03.2014 is of no consequence. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the aforementioned judgment dated 17.09.2011 was delivered pursuant to the ex-parte proceedings, and as per the adoption deed executed on 12.05.2005, at the relevant time, the petitioner was 15 years old, and therefore, as per the law, no child of such age can be taken in adoption, and the document furnished in support thereof is also not a registered document; even the signature of the deceased government servant alleged put on the deed in question is apparently a forged one. 4.2. Learned counsel also submits that the Ration Card and Mark-Sheet of the Secondary Supplementary Examination-2007 issued by the Board, wherein the petitioner’s name entered as ‘Banita’ and father’s name is ‘Sens Kira’ and the mother’s name was mentioned as ‘Bimla Devi’ and therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is not adopted daughter of the deceased government servant and his wife, thereby, making the petitioner disentitled for the compassionate appointment in question. 5. Heard learned counsel of the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner is the adopted daughter of the deceased government servant, who was appointed as Constable in the year 1975 and thereafter, during the service he expired due to ailment on 13.09.2009. The deceased government servant was survived by his wife-Vidya Devi and the present petitioner. Thereafter, the adoptive mother-Vidya Devi submitted before the concerned respondent authority an application seeking compassionate appointment of the present petitioner, alongwith affidavit that the petitioner was adopted as daughter on 12.01.2004 and the adoption deed was executed on 12.05.2005, but still the respondents did not grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 6.1. Thereafter, the adoptive mother-Vidya Devi submitted before the concerned respondent authority an application seeking compassionate appointment of the present petitioner, alongwith affidavit that the petitioner was adopted as daughter on 12.01.2004 and the adoption deed was executed on 12.05.2005, but still the respondents did not grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 6.1. This Court further observes that as per the aforementioned judgment dated 17.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, the petitioner was declared as adopted daughter of the deceased government servant, pursuant to adoption done on 12.01.2004 as per the rituals, and that the adoption deed was executed on 12.05.2005, which was declared as valid, thus deciding and upholding the validity of the adoption in question dated 12.04.2004 and the aforesaid adoption deed executed on 12.05.2005. Relevant portion of the said judgment dated 17.09.2011 is reproduced as hereunder: ^^5- cgl mHk; i{kdkjku lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA Ádj.k ds fuLrkj.k gsrq U;k;ky; ds le{k fuEufyf[kr fcUnq mRiUu gksrk gS%& ¼1½ okfn;k dk Áfrokfn;k la[;k&1 o mlds ifr LoŒ galjkt ds }kjk nRrd xzg.k oS| gS rFkk oknh;k Áfrokfn;k la[;k&1 dh [kksyk;r iq=h gS rFkk Áfrokfn;k la[;k&1 oknh;k dh [kksyk;r ekrk gSA ¼2½ vuqrks"k\ 7- gLrxr Ádj.k esa tks xksnukek is'k gqvk gS og xksnukek fnukad 12-5-2005 dk is'k gqvk ,oa gLrxr Ádj.k esa xokg ihŒMŒ&1 us vius eq[; ijh{k.k esa bl ckr dks crk;k gS fd fnukad 12-1-2004 dks lekt ds Ápfyr jhfr fjoktksa ds vuqlkj mls xksn fy;k x;k ,oa xksnukek dh fy[kkoV 12-5-2005 dks rgjhj dh xbZ vkSj xksn ysrs le; fedjk dh vk;q 14 lky dh FkhA 10- vkns'k fygktk okn okfn;k fo:) Áfroknhx.k ,di{kh; ckcr ?kks"k.kkRed bl vk'k; dk Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS fd okfn;k dk Áfrokfn;k la[;k&1 Jherh fo|k nsoh o mlds ifr LoŒ galjkt ds }kjk nRrd xzg.k oS/k gS rFkk oknh;k Áfrokfn;k la[;k&1 Jherh fo|k nsoh dh [kksyk;r iq=h gS rFkk Áfrokfn;k la[;k&1 Jherh fo|k nsoh oknh;k dh [kksyk;r ekrk gSA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk viuk ogu djsaA** 7. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed in Kuldeep Singh (supra), as hereunder: “7.1. At this juncture, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the order passed in Kuldeep Singh (supra), as hereunder: “7.1. This Court further observes that the petitioner is the adopted son of deceased-Om Prakash and the respondents rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment only on the ground that the adopted deed in question was registered at the time when the petitioner was aged 19 years 8 months and 21 days, and therefore, the same was not accepted by the respondents. The said impugned action in the present set of facts, is not justified in law, because the petitioner was adopted by the deceased government servant and his wife during his (petitioner’s) childhood, while the adoption deed was registered at a later point of time. 8. This Court also observes that even the adoption deed was executed and registered prior to the death of Om Prakash, and thus, otherwise, the petitioner is eligible in all respects for grant of the compassionate appointment. This Court further observes that after the death of the sole breadwinner, the family under bereavement is facing the financial hardship, and thus, the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, in the present set of facts, ought to have been objectively considered by the respondents, rather than declining the same on the mere technicalities, which otherwise have no impact upon the claim of the petitioner, more particularly, when the same was not short of any requisites and eligibility.” 8. This Court also observes that the aforementioned judgment makes it clear that the petitioner is the lawfully adopted daughter of the deceased government servant and his wife, as the said adoption and the adoption deed was declared as valid by the learned Civil judge. 9. This Court further observes that the government servant (father of the petitioner) expired while in service, survived by his wife and the present petitioner (adopted daughter), being dependents of the deceased government servant. Once the adoption in question and the adoption deed were declared as valid by the competent Court and that the petitioner clearly falls under the definition of ‘dependent’ as contained under Rule 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, she is eligible and entitled for the compassionate appointment in question. 10. Once the adoption in question and the adoption deed were declared as valid by the competent Court and that the petitioner clearly falls under the definition of ‘dependent’ as contained under Rule 2 (c) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996, she is eligible and entitled for the compassionate appointment in question. 10. This Court also observes that after the death of the government servant herein, the entire family started facing the emotional as well as financial hardships, and therefore the compassionate appointment in question, being lawful, is all the more necessary for enabling the family’s sustenance against such hardships. This Court further observes that after death of the government servant herein, the petitioner’s mother i.e. wife of the deceased government servant, duly submitted the application for grant of compassionate appointment in question to the petitioner, but the respondents did not consider the same in the right perspective, rather, as informed to this Court, no order rejecting the said application has been passed as yet. 11. This Court further observes that even after the aforementioned judgment dated 17.09.2011, the respondents instead of granting the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, issued a letter seeking clarification in regard to the said judgment, and even after furnishing of the necessary clarification, the petitioner is being deprived of the compassionate appointment in question, such inaction on the part of the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law. 12. Thus, in view of the above as well as looking into the factual matrix of the present case, the instant petition is allowed. The respondents are accordingly directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All the benefits of such compassionate appointment to the petitioner shall operate prospectively.