The Court affirms that a valid adoption, once proved, fulfills the requirements for compassionate appointment, regardless of posthumous registration of the adoption deed.
In a significant ruling, the Orissa High Court has upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack, which had quashed an earlier order denying a claim for compassionate appointment on grounds of adoption. The court ruled that a valid adoption fulfills the requirements of the compassionate appointment policy irrespective of the registration of the adoption deed after the employee's demise.
The case revolves around the adopted son, K. Manoj Patra, who had sought compassionate appointment following the death of his adoptive father, Mr. Late K. Sadhu Patra, an Ex-Technician in the Railway Department, who passed away on April 2, 2008. The claim was initially rejected by the Railway authorities, citing that the adoption deed was registered posthumously on February 8, 2010, and not with the consent of the Railways as required by its policy.
The Tribunal, in its order dated January 29, 2025, had found that the adoption was valid as per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, which does not mandate the registration of an adoption deed for the adoption to be considered valid. The Tribunal directed the authorities to reconsider the claim within sixty days.
In its judgment dated January 6, 2026, the High Court emphasized that the performance of requisite adoption rites and rituals is sufficient for a valid adoption, and the subsequent registration of the adoption deed is merely evidentiary, not constitutive. The court also clarified that judgments in personum can still serve as evidence to establish facts such as adoption, even if they do not bind non-parties.
The court pointed out that the binding nature of a judgment is distinct from its evidentiary value, and such judgments can inform judicial prudence in assessing the facts of a case. The court reiterated the importance of adhering to policy conditions for compassionate appointments and stated that denying such appointments is unjustified if policy conditions are met, as in the case of valid adoption.
The ruling further highlighted the procedural requirements under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, emphasizing that the actual giving and taking, along with the necessary ceremonies, are mandatory for a valid adoption. The court also noted that while the registration of an adoption deed creates a presumption of validity under Section 16 of the Act, it is not mandatory.
The judgment provides a clear message that employer policies regulating compassionate appointments must be adhered to, and valid adoptions should not be disregarded due to procedural technicalities like posthumous registration.
The court ordered the Railway Department to implement the Tribunal's decision within two months and warned that non-compliance would be viewed seriously in further legal proceedings.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment - Validity of adoption and its compliance with policy requirements are pivotal in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment in public employment.
Statutory provision(s): Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Registration Act, 1908, General Clauses Act, 1897, Railway Board's Policy Circulars
Union of India v. K. Manoj Patra, (Orissa)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2834947
