ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed for grant of compassionate appointment and to set aside the order dated 25.11.2017 (Annexure-P/1) whereby claim of the petitioner that he is the adopted son of deceased Lila Ram Tandon, Head Constable, who died in harness on 31st July, 2014, was declined. 2. Facts of the case are that late Lila Ram Tandon was working as Head Constable in the Department of Home, who died in harness on 31st July, 2014. The petitioner claiming himself to be adopted son of the deceased moved an application for compassionate appointment on 29th October, 2014 along with certificate of the Gram Panchayat and other documents in support of his claim. However, the said application was rejected by the respondents on 30th October, 2014 on the ground that the petitioner has failed to establish the relationship between him and the deceased employee as father and adopted son, and further that the petitioner has earlier applied for compassionate appointment being brother-in-law of the deceased. When the said claim was not accepted, he has taken another ground claiming himself to be adopted son. Against the said rejection, the petitioner has filed a writ petition bearing WPS No.6578/2014, which was disposed of vide order dated 13.1.2016 with a direction that the competent authority ought to have granted proper and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to establish the relationship with the deceased employee and the respondent authorities should have held enquiry in that regard. Thereafter in pursuance of the said direction, a Committee has been constituted on 3rd March, 2016 (Annexure-P/3). 3. Meanwhile, the petitioner has filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.80- A/2016 along with the wife of the deceased employee namely, Smt. Radha Bai by impleading his natural father Suraj Lal Madhukar and mother Smt. Rambha Devi and the State before 10th Civil Judge, Class- II, Bilaspur and the said civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.6.2016 (Annexure-P/5) by observing that though the petitioner has claimed that he was adopted by the deceased employee in the year 1997 at the age of 5-6 years, but in his school records, the names of his natural father and mother were continued in the documents (Ex.-P/1 to P/5) and further that no information was given by the deceased employee to the respondent department about such adoption, because of which it was presumed that the suit was collusive in nature. The said judgment was challenged by way of an appeal under Order 41 Rule 1 read with Section 96 of the CPC (Annexure-P/7) before the 6th Additional District Judge vide MJC No.149/2017. 4. It is very surprising to note that Shri Rakesh Kashyap, Advocate, has filed the said appeal and caused his appearance before the Court as per the order sheet dated 30th March, 2017 which is annexed in this petition. During the pendency of said appeal, the same Advocate has also filed similar nature of civil suit before 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur viz Civil Suit No.128-A/2016 on 9th September, 2016. The said civil suit was compromised before the National Lok Adalat, Bench No.6 cum 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. It is also surprising to note that in the said civil suit, the cause title reflects that the plaintiffs of the earlier suit i.e. the petitioner and wife of the deceased, who were together earlier in the civil suit No.80-A/2016, have changed their status and the wife of the deceased has been impleaded as defendant No.1 in the later suit. On the basis of compromise, the National Lok Adalat Bench No.6 allowed the said compromise and passed an order that petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased employee and defendant No.1 Smt. Radha Bai. It was also declared that the petitioner and wife of the deceased employee are joint owner of the property (Schedule-A). In such backdrop of the case, the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) has been challenged in this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no legal requirement that the adoption proceedings must be registered under the Registration Act, 1908. Since the competent Court has already declared that the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased employee, the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order (Annexure-P/1) be set aside. 6. In the return filed by the State, it has been stated that the petitioner is the brother-in-law of the deceased employee. As per clause-5 of the circular/policy dated 14.6.2013, formulated by the State, the petitioner is not entitled to claim compassionate appointment. As per clause-5 of the circular dated 14.6.2013, the sequence of beneficiaries who are entitled for compassionate appointment are as under:- “i. Wife or husband of the deceased employee ii. Son/adopted son iii. Unmarried daughter/adopted unmarried daughter iv. Dependant widow daughter/dependant adopted widow daughter. As per clause-5 of the circular dated 14.6.2013, the sequence of beneficiaries who are entitled for compassionate appointment are as under:- “i. Wife or husband of the deceased employee ii. Son/adopted son iii. Unmarried daughter/adopted unmarried daughter iv. Dependant widow daughter/dependant adopted widow daughter. v. Dependant divorcee daughter/dependant divorcee adopted daughter.” 7. In the aforesaid list, brother-in-law is not entitled for compassionate appointment and a communication has already been sent to the wife of the deceased employee on 14th October, 2014 (Annexure-R/1). Thereafter the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on 29th October, 2014 along with certificate of Gram Panchayat and other documents in support of his claim. However, his claim was rejected on 30th October, 2014. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the rejection order dated 30th October, 2014. In compliance of the order passed in the said writ petition, a Committee has been constituted and an opportunity was also afforded to the petitioner to produce the relevant documents before the Committee. However, the petitioner has neither produced any document in support of his claim nor was he present before the Committee on 9.3.2016. Thereafter a reminder was also issued on 6.4.2016 (Annexure-R/5). On 12th April, 2016, the petitioner submitted an application seeking extension of time of one month on the ground that he has filed the civil suit for declaration of adopted son which was pending before the 10th Civil Judge Class-II, Bilaspur. The said civil suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 20.6.2016. After perusal of the said judgment, claim of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2017. The petitioner has no vested right to claim compassionate appointment, as the same is exception to the general rule. For all these reasons, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition with utmost circumspection. 9. Perusal of the letter dated 14th October, 2014 (Annexure-R/1) shows that the wife of the deceased was informed that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground that he is the brother-in-law of the deceased employee and he is not covered as per the scheme/policy framed by the State Government vide clause-5 thereof. 9. Perusal of the letter dated 14th October, 2014 (Annexure-R/1) shows that the wife of the deceased was informed that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground that he is the brother-in-law of the deceased employee and he is not covered as per the scheme/policy framed by the State Government vide clause-5 thereof. After the receipt of the said communication, only to secure employment on compassionate ground, a new ground has been taken that the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased employee. It is very surprising that on earlier occasion, no such claim has been preferred by the petitioner and the deceased employee has also not provided any information during his life time that he has adopted the petitioner as his son. When the said claim was declined by the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this Court in the earlier round of litigation wherein a direction was issued to examine the fact regarding adoption. The petitioner has filed a civil suit before the 10th Civil Judge, Class-II, Bilaspur, bearing CS No.80-A/2016 and the trial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while dismissing the suit vide its judgment dated 20.6.2016. Even after the alleged claim of adoption, the names of natural father and mother have been continued in the educational qualifications of the petitioner. Materially, when the deceased employee himself has not provided any information to his employer, it may be presumed that the suit which was filed was in collusive nature. 10. After dismissal of the said civil suit, an appeal was filed bearing MJC No.149/2017, which was withdrawn before the 6th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur on the ground that the relief has already been obtained by way of decree passed by the 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur. The same is sheer abuse of process of the Court. When the civil suit has already been dismissed on merits and the matter was pending consideration before the appellate Court and the said fact was well within the knowledge of the learned Officer of the Court i.e. the Advocate, it was his bounden duty to inform 4th A.D.J., Bilaspur regarding dismissal of the previous suit in order to promote justice. Having such knowledge, he had filed the second suit before the 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur bearing CS No.128-A/2016 and the matter was compromised before the National Lok Adalat on 8th April, 2017. Having such knowledge, he had filed the second suit before the 4th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur bearing CS No.128-A/2016 and the matter was compromised before the National Lok Adalat on 8th April, 2017. 11.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine SC 777 has considered the aspect of ‘suitable’ and ‘unsuitable’ categorization of cases to hold that the aforesaid categorization is not intended to be exhaustive or rigid and they are illustriative which can be subjected to just exceptions or additions by the Court/Tribunal exercising its jurisdiction/discretion in referring a dispute/case to an ADR process. The following was materially observed at paras-27 & 28:- “27. The following categories of cases are normally considered to be not suitable for ADR process having regard to their nature: (i) Representative suits under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC which involve public interest or interest of numerous persons who are not parties before the court. (In fact, even a compromise in such a suit is a difficult process requiring notice to the persons interested in the suit, before its acceptance). (ii) Disputes relating to election to public offices (as contrasted from disputes between two groups trying to get control over the management of societies, clubs, association, etc.) (iii) Cases involving grant of authority by the court after enquiry, as for example, suits for grant of probate or letters of administration. (iv) Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation, coercion, etc. (v) Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example, claims against minors, deities and mentally challenged and suits for declaration of title against the Government. (vi) Cases involving prosecution for criminal offences. 28. (iv) Cases involving serious and specific allegations of fraud, fabrication of documents, forgery, impersonation, coercion, etc. (v) Cases requiring protection of courts, as for example, claims against minors, deities and mentally challenged and suits for declaration of title against the Government. (vi) Cases involving prosecution for criminal offences. 28. All other suits and cases of civil nature in particular the following categories of cases (whether pending in civil courts or other special tribunals/forums) are normally suitable for ADR processes: (i) All cases relating to trade, commerce and contracts, including disputes arising out of contracts (including all money claims); disputes relating to specific performance; disputes between suppliers and customers; disputes between bankers and customers; disputes between developers/builders and customers; disputes between landlords and tenants/licensor and licensees; disputes between insurer and insured; (ii) All cases arising from strained or soured relationships, including disputes relating to matrimonial causes, maintenance, custody of children; disputes relating to partition/division among family members/coparceners/co-owners; and disputes relating to partnership among partners. (iii) All cases where there is a need for continuation of the pre-existing relationship in spite of the disputes, including disputes between neighbours (relating to easementary rights, encroachments, nuisance, etc.); disputes between employers and employees; disputes among members of societies/associations/apartment owners' associations; (iv) All cases relating to tortious liability, including claims for compensation in motor accidents/other accidents; and (v) All consumer disputes, including disputes where a trader/supplier/manufacturer/service provider is keen to maintain his business/professional reputation and credibility or product popularity. The above enumeration of “suitable” and “unsuitable” categorisation of cases is not intended to be exhaustive or rigid. They are illustrative, which can be subjected to just exceptions or additions by the court/tribunal exercising its jurisdiction/discretion in referring a dispute/case to an ADR process.” 12. In the circumstances, this Court is constrained to observe that the disputed fact regarding valid adoption should have been examined before the National Lok Adalat. Before passing the order, it is required that the conditions stipulated under the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 1956”) are to be complied with. Without examining the said fact and in what manner compromise has been arrived, the matter could not have been decided by the Lok Adalat. For a valid adoption, other conditions mentioned in the Act of 1956 must be complied with. Without examining the said fact and in what manner compromise has been arrived, the matter could not have been decided by the Lok Adalat. For a valid adoption, other conditions mentioned in the Act of 1956 must be complied with. Section 9 of the said Act deals with persons capable of giving in adoption, whereas Section 10 deals with the persons who may be adopted and Section 11 deals with other conditions for a valid adoption. For the sake of brevity, Sections 9, 10 & 11 of the Act of 1956 read thus:- “9. Persons capable of giving in adoption (1) No person except the father or mother or the guardian of a child shall have the capacity to give the child in adoption. (2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), the father or the mother, if alive, shall have equal right to give a son or daughter in adoption: Provided that such right shall not be exercised by either of them save with the consent of the other unless one of them has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind. (3) deleted. (4) Where both the father and mother are dead or have completely and finally renounced the world or have abandoned the child or have been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind or where the parentage of the child is not known, the guardian of the child may give the child in adoption with the previous permission of the court to any person including the guardian himself. (5) Before granting permission to a guardian under sub-section (4), the court shall be satisfied that the adoption will be for the welfare of the child, due consideration being for this purpose given to the wishes of the child having regard to the age and understanding of the child and that the applicant for permission has not received or agreed to receive and that no person has made or given or agreed to make or give to the applicant any payment or reward in consideration of the adoption except such as the court may sanction. Explanation. Explanation. For the purposes of this section - (i) the expressions father and mother do not include an adoptive father and an adoptive mother; (ia) guardian means a person having the care of the person of a child or of both his person and property and includes (a) a guardian appointed by the will of the child's father or mother, and (b) a guardian appointed or declared by a court; and (ii) court means the city civil court or a district court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the child to be adopted ordinarily resides. 10. Persons who may be adopted: No person shall be capable of being taken in adoption unless the following conditions are fulfilled, namely:? (i) he or she is a Hindu; (ii) he or she has not already been adopted; (iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption; (iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who have completed the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption. 11. Other conditions for a valid adoption: In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with:? 11. Other conditions for a valid adoption: In every adoption, the following conditions must be complied with:? (i) if the adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu son sons son or sons sons son (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; (ii) if the adoption is of a daughter, the adoptive father or mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a Hindu daughter or sons daughter (whether by legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at the time of adoption; (iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be adopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted; (iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted; (v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously by two or more persons; (vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and taken in adoption by the parents or guardian concerned or under their authority with intent to transfer the child from the family of its birth 1[or in the case of an abandoned child or a child whose parentage is not known, from the place or family where it has been brought up] to the family of its adoption: Provided that the performance of datta homam shall not be essential to the validity of an adoption.” 13. With regard to the claim regarding compassionate appointment, it is well settled that the principle regarding compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. The appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment. The guiding factors should be the financial conditions of the family. 14. Admittedly, in the instant case, the widow is available, but she was not inclined or did not prefer any application for compassionate appointment. Rather she was interested in securing appointment in favour of her brother. When the said claim was rejected earlier, a new ground has been taken that the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased employee. 15. Admittedly, in the instant case, the widow is available, but she was not inclined or did not prefer any application for compassionate appointment. Rather she was interested in securing appointment in favour of her brother. When the said claim was rejected earlier, a new ground has been taken that the petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased employee. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it may be safely inferred that the status of the petitioner is still under cloud for the reason that when the decree passed earlier was in existence and the suit was already dismissed, by suppressing the said fact, the second decree has been obtained in favour of the petitioner in the later suit filed by the parties. Therefore, it is explicit that the second decree was obtained in favour of the petitioner by way of fraud, which is non est in the eyes of law and the same is nullity. 16.Recently in the matter of State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 219, it has been categorically observed that in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee. The principles for grant of compassionate appointment have been summarized at paras-32 to 35, which read thus:- “32. The principles for grant of compassionate appointment have been summarized at paras-32 to 35, which read thus:- “32. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles emerge: i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source. 33. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome. Thus, there is also a compelling need to act with a sense of immediacy in matters concerning compassionate appointment because on failure to do so, the object of the scheme of compassionate would be frustrated. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus lose its significance and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out for consideration. 34. As noted above, the sine qua non for entertaining a claim for compassionate appointment is that the family of the deceased employee would be unable to make two ends meet without one of the dependants of the deceased employee being employed on compassionate grounds. The financial condition of the family of the deceased, at the time of the death of the deceased, is the primary consideration that ought to guide the authorities’ decision in the matter. 35. Considering the second question referred to above, in the first instance, regarding whether applications for compassionate appointment could be considered after a delay of several years, we are of the view that, in a case where, for reasons of prolonged delay, either on the part of the applicant in claiming compassionate appointment or the authorities in deciding such claim, the sense of immediacy is diluted and lost. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. Further, the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased, may have changed, for the better, since the time of the death of the government employee. In such circumstances, Courts or other relevant authorities are to be guided by the fact that for such prolonged period of delay, the family of the deceased was able to sustain themselves, most probably by availing gainful employment from some other source. Granting compassionate appointment in such a case, as noted by this Court in Hakim Singh[ (1997) 8 SCC 85 ] would amount to treating a claim for compassionate appointment as though it were a matter of inheritance based on a line of succession which is contrary to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the government employee.” 17. In view of the aforesaid settled principles and in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the competent authority has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. 18.This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the respondents warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19.The Writ Petition being bereft of any substance deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 20.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Member Secretary, SLSA as also to the Director, Chhattisgarh State Judicial Academy for information. 21.Registrar General is also requested to issue proper guidelines to all the Judicial Officers of the State to the effect that while referring a dispute/case to an ADR process, it must be ensured that it is a fit or suitable case, which also satisfies the statutory requirements/conditions on the basis of which an award could be passed in the Lok Adalat, and for that purpose, list of illustrative cases which are identified in the matter of Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (Supra), shall also be taken into consideration.