Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Rajasthan vs Mukesh Suthar (2025:Rj-Jd:43841-Db)
2025 Latest Caselaw 13928 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 13928 Raj
Judgement Date : 6 October, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Mukesh Suthar (2025:Rj-Jd:43841-Db) on 6 October, 2025

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:43841-DB]                    (1 of 3)                           [SAW-1192/2024]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1192/2024

1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
        Public Health And Engineering, Government Of Rajasthan,
        Jaipur.
2.      The      Chief      Engineer         (Admn.),         Public        Health   And
        Engineering Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.      Superintendent, Engineer
4.      Executive        Engineer,        Public       Health        And     Engineering
        Department, Circle Bikaner, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5.      Asstt.     Engineer,           Public        Health          And     Engineering
        Department,          Production,            Supply     And         Revenue   Sub
        Division Vii, Nathusar Gate, Bikaner.
                                                                           ----Appellants
                                        Versus
Mukesh Suthar, Resident Of Vinayak Colony, Prahladji Ki Badi,
Sujandeshar, Gangasehar, Bikaner.
                                                                       ----Respondent


 For Appellant(s)               :    Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore, AAG.
 For Respondent(s)              :


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Order

06/10/2025

1. Heard learned AAG Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore on the

application for condonation of delay as well as on the merits of the

appeal itself.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

06.05.2023, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent

has been allowed with a direction to the appellants to offer

compassionate appointment to the respondent-petitioner in

(Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:41:15 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43841-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1192/2024]

accordance with the law, latest by 31.07.2024, if the respondent

is otherwise eligible.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General vehemently submits

that the adoption of the respondent-petitioner creates suspicion as

the deed of adoption was executed just one day before the death

of the mother of the respondent-petitioner i.e. on 29.06.2009. On

this ground alone, learned Additional Advocate General submits

that the respondent-petitioner is not entitled for grant of

appointment on compassionate grounds, therefore, the appeal

may be allowed and the order dated 06.05.2023 may be quashed

and set aside.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that

even the adoption deed was executed after the respondent-

petitioner had attained the age of 15 years. Therefore, the same

cannot be held to be a valid adoption.

5. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and

have gone through the relevant material available on record.

6. The argument of the learned AAG that the adoption deed is a

suspicious one is basically unfounded on the ground that the

respondent-petitioner had applied for a succession certificate

under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and in those

proceedings the appellants were also party-respondents. The

learned Court of District Judge, Bikaner after framing the issues

had allowed the application vide its judgment dated 29.09.2012

and the adoption of the present respondent was found to be valid

and in accordance with the law. The judgment dated 29.02.2012

passed by the District Judge, Bikaner has not been assailed and

therefore, there is no reason for this Court to come to the

conclusion that the adoption of the respondent-petitioner was (Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:41:15 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:43841-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1192/2024]

dehors the law. It is also noted that in all the correspondence,

educational degrees and other documents, the name of the

respondent-petitioner's father is shown to be "Dhanna Ram" to

whom the respondent-petitioner had gone as an adopted child.

The learned Single Judge has dealt with the issue in detail and has

rightly concluded that the respondent-petitioner is a validly

adopted child of the deceased Government servant and, therefore,

he is entitled to be granted compassionate appointment as per the

Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of

Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.

7. In view of the discussions made above, there is no merit in

the appeal. Hence, the present special appeal stands dismissed.

8. Accordingly, IA No.1/2024 also stands dismissed.

                                   (BIPIN GUPTA),J                                    (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
                                    56-Jatin-sumer/-




                                                            (Uploaded on 07/10/2025 at 04:41:15 PM)




Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter