Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kanwar Pal vs Gm N.Rly. on 16 February, 2026
1- O.A. No. 1008/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No.060/1008/2020
Pronounced on: 16.02.2026
Reserved on: 27.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
Kanwar Pal aged 45 years old, adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh,
R/o Village Begamabad, Tehsil Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad at present
House No. B-IV 1649/D-2, Guruteg Bahadur Nagar, Jagadhri Workshop,
Yamunanagar.
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Puneet Sharma
Versus
1. General Manager, Northern Railway, Head Office Railway Baroda
House, KG Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Chief Workshop Manager, Northern Railway, C&W Shop, Jagadhri
Workshop, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar, Haryana-135002.
Digitally signed
by MAMTA
WADHWA
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur along with Ms. Monika Kondal
2- O.A. No. 1008/2020
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
(i) To issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-
7), whereby, the respondents in an illegal, arbitrary & whimsical manner have rejected the claim of compassionate appointment to the applicant by wrongly reiterating that the adoption deed is required to be registered whereas there is no such condition of registration of the adoption deed, inspite of the fact that the applicant had been eligible for such appointment.
(ii). To issue a writ, order and direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant (in accordance with the instructions given by Government of India, Ministry of Railways/Rail Mantralya (Railway Board) vide No. E(NG)III/78/RC-1/1 dated 07.04.1983, as amended up to date) being the son/adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh who has died while in harness, thus making the applicant eligible for compassionate appointment.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that Sh. Bishamber Singh was working as a Carpenter in the Railway Workshop at Jagadhri under Northern Railway. While in service, he unfortunately died on 09.02.2003 (Annexure P-1). The applicant Kanwar Pal claims to be the adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh, the adoption having been effected through a 3- O.A. No. 1008/2020 Panchayati adoption deed (Goodh-Nama) dated 24.08.1980 (Annexure A- 2/A). The applicant‟s name has also been recorded as son of Sh. Bishamber Singh in his school records, including the scholar register and transfer certificate dated 07.03.2003 (Annexure P-2/B). Sh. Bishamber Singh and his wife Smt. Chand Kaur had no natural children. They proposed to adopt the applicant from the family of Sh. Pitam Singh, brother of Sh. Bishamber Singh, who had seven children. The adoption of the applicant was thus made before the Panchayat on 24.08.1980. Subsequently, another child, Smt. Nisha Rani, was also adopted by late Sh. Bishamber Singh and his wife.
3. After the death of Sh. Bishamber Singh, the applicant being validly adopted son, being eligible for compassionate appointment, applied for compassionate appointment on the basis of the adoption document (Godh-Nama) dated 24.08.1980 and school certificates. However, the disputes arose regarding succession to the assets and service benefits of deceased employee. Smt. Nisha Rani filed a suit under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Case No. 12 dated 14.03.2003). With the intervention of elders, a compromise was arrived at on 07.11.2003, whereby the applicant and Smt. Nisha Rani were to share equally the savings and other benefits of late Sh. Bishamber Singh, and Smt. Nisha Rani relinquished her claim to compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant (Annexure P-3).
4. Despite the compromise, other legal heirs filed a suit for permanent injunction in 2005 challenging the adoption of Smt. Nisha Rani and restraining withdrawal of FDRs and railway dues. That suit was withdrawn on 23.02.2010 on compromise basis , and the 4- O.A. No. 1008/2020 succession case under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act was dismissed in default on 08.12.2009. Thereafter, the applicant reiterated his claim for compassionate appointment by furnishing the compromise and court orders. However, the respondents rejected the claim by order dated 03.08.2011, stating that the adoption deed was not legally valid (Annexure P-4).
5. The applicant again approached the Civil Court by filing a Civil Suit for the issuance of Succession Certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 wherein, two of the crucial issues regarding adoption and validity of the compromise dated 07.11.2023 were adjudicated in the summary proceedings, vide decree dated 25.04.2014. The applicant again applied for compassionate appointment. However, the respondents rejected his claim by order dated 17.03.2015 on the ground that he did not have a legally valid adoption deed (Annexure P-5). The applicant was advised to obtain a declaration from the Civil Court regarding his adoption.
6. Accordingly, the applicant filed Civil Suit No. 228 dated 03.03.2016 seeking a declaration that he is the adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh and entitled to inherit his estate and service benefits. The learned Civil Court partly decreed the suit on 29.11.2018 (Annexure P-6), holding that the applicant Kanwar Pal and Smt. Nisha Rani are the adopted son and adopted daughter respectively of late Sh. Bishamber Singh and his wife Smt. Chand Kaur. The Court, however, left the issue of compassionate appointment to be decided by the Railway authorities in accordance with the rules.
5- O.A. No. 1008/2020
7. On the strength of the declaratory order, the applicant again approached the respondents. The respondents, however, again rejected the claim vide order dated 20.02.2019 on the ground that the adoption deed was not a registered document (Annexure P-7). The applicant served a legal notice dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-8/A & P-8/B) and another notice dated 28.05.2019 (Annexure P-9/A & P-9/B), but no relief was granted.
8. The applicant relies on the Railway Board‟s instructions dated 07.04.1983 regarding compassionate appointment, and the clarification dated 20.05.1988, which specifically include adopted sons/daughters as eligible, provided there is satisfactory proof of adoption valid in law and completed before the death of the employee. The Master Circular and Railway Servant (Pass) Rules, 1986 also define "adopted child" as one for whom there is satisfactory proof of adoption, irrespective of whether such adoption is permissible under personal law.
9. The applicant contends that the respondents have acted illegally and arbitrarily in insisting on registration of the adoption deed, which is not a requirement under the Railway Board‟s instructions or the said Pass Rules, 1986. It is urged that the adoption of the applicant was validly completed on 24.08.1980 (Annexure P-2/A), long before the death of Sh. Bishamber Singh on 09.02.2003 (Annexure P-1). The applicant‟s status as adopted son is supported by school records (Annexure P-2/B), the compromise dated 07.11.2003 (Annexure P-3), and the declaratory order dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure P-6).
10. It is further contended that the respondents have kept on shifting their stand: first saying the adoption deed was not legally valid 6- O.A. No. 1008/2020 (order dated 03.08.2011, Annexure P-4), then again reiterating the same in the order dated 17.03.2015 (Annexure P-5), and finally insisting upon registration of the adoption deed in the order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-7), even after the Civil Court had declared the applicant to be the adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh.
11. The applicant submits that under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, and the Railway Board‟s circulars, there is no requirement that an adoption deed must be registered, and only satisfactory proof of adoption is required. The Panchayati adoption deed dated 24.08.1980 (Annexure P-2/A), the school certificates (Annexure P- 2/B), the compromise (Annexure P-3), and the declaratory decree (Annexure P-6) together constitute overwhelming and satisfactory proof of valid adoption.
12. The applicant also relies upon the fact that his name is recorded as son of Sh. Bishamber Singh in the ration card and voter identity card (Annexures P-10/A and P-10/B), and that he continued to reside in the Railway quarter allotted to late Sh. Bishamber Singh until 2019. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) is arbitrary, contrary to the Railway Board‟s instructions dated 07.04.1983 and 20.05.1988, the Master Circular, and the Pass Rules, 1986, and liable to be quashed, with a consequential direction to grant compassionate appointment to the applicant as the adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh, who died in harness.
13. The respondents have contested the Original Application and submitted that the present Original Application is not maintainable either in law or on facts. On merits, the Respondents submit that 7- O.A. No. 1008/2020 compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not a matter of inheritance nor a vested right. The scheme governing compassionate appointment must be strictly construed and strictly complied with. The Applicant, according to the Respondents, has failed to satisfy the essential eligibility conditions under the applicable Railway policy dated 07.04.1983.
14. The primary basis of the applicant‟s claim is that he is the adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh. The Respondents vehemently deny the validity of the alleged adoption. It is contended that the so- called "Godhnama" (Annexure P-2/A) is undated and unregistered and does not fulfill the mandatory requirements of Sections 4 and 9 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In particular, the consent of the mother, which is an essential ingredient for a valid adoption when both parents are alive, is conspicuously absent. Consequently, the said document does not enjoy the statutory presumption under Section 16 of the Act and cannot confer any legal status upon the applicant as an adopted son.
15. It is further submitted that the Panchayat had no authority under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 to validate or certify such adoption. The alleged adoption deed being neither registered nor legally executed, is described as self-serving and devoid of legal sanctity. The Respondents submit that in the absence of a legally valid adoption deed, the applicant cannot even claim consideration under the compassionate appointment scheme.
8- O.A. No. 1008/2020
16. The Respondents also raise a serious objection on the ground of limitation. Late Sh. Bishamber Singh expired on 09.02.2003. The Applicant‟s request dated 17.07.2011 was rejected on 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-4). A subsequent request was rejected on 17.03.2015 (Annexure P-5), and yet another representation dated 02.01.2019 was rejected on 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-7). It is submitted that repeated representations do not revive or extend limitation. The claim, having been rejected years ago and not challenged in time, is hopelessly barred. Annexure P-7 is merely reiterative of earlier rejections and does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. Reliance has been placed upon judicial pronouncements of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court including Ajit Singh vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733, P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala, (1997) 7 SCC 556, R.C. Sammanta v. Union of India, JT 1993 (3) SC 418, C. Jacob v. Director of Geology & Mining, 2009 (1) RSJ 255, Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, Meghmala v. G. Narasimha Reddy,(2010) 8 SCC 383 and State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, 2010 (1) RSJ 22 (SC) to contend that stale claims cannot be revived by repeated representations, delay defeats equity, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and abuse of process of court must be discouraged.
17. The Respondents further contend that the applicant is over-aged for appointment. As per his own showing, he is about 46 years of age, whereas the maximum age prescribed for direct recruitment is 27 years. Even otherwise, there is a delay of more than 17 years from the date of death of the deceased employee. Compassionate appointment is intended to meet immediate financial hardship arising from sudden death of the 9- O.A. No. 1008/2020 breadwinner. Such long lapse of time defeats the very object of the scheme.
18. The respondents also submit that the applicant is married and has his own family comprising wife and children. He cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased at the relevant time. The deceased employee had never declared the applicant as his adopted son or dependent in any service record. The entry of the deceased‟s name in the applicant‟s school certificate after the death of Sh. Bishamber Singh in March 2003 is alleged to be an afterthought and raises serious doubt regarding the genuineness of the claim.
19. With regard to the civil court proceedings and the decree dated 29.11.2018, the Respondents submit that the Railways were not impleaded as a party therein. The decree was passed on the basis of compromise between private parties and not on adjudication of the validity of the adoption in terms of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. Therefore, in view of Section 35 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the said decree is not binding on the Railways. Similarly, the proceedings under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and any succession certificate granted therein do not determine status or confer eligibility for compassionate appointment, as succession law operates in a different field.
20. The applicant has filed rejoinder reiterating his contentions raised in the O.A. Along with the rejoinder, the applicant has placed on record Internal enquiry report dated 26.04.2010 (Annexure P-13) and the welfare/Personal Inspector Enquiry Report dated 12.08.2014 (Annexure 10- O.A. No. 1008/2020 P-14) wherein also the inquiry inspector recorded that the applicant is the adopted male child of the deceased employee.
21. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether the applicant has satisfactorily proved that he is the legally adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh in terms of the applicable personal law and Railway Board instructions, and consequently whether the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the adoption deed was not registered and allegedly not legally valid is sustainable in law.
22. From the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record, the following facts emerge as undisputed: Late Sh. Bishamber Singh was working as a Carpenter in Northern Railway at Jagadhri Workshop and died in harness on 09.02.2003 (Annexure P-1). The applicant claims to be his adopted son on the basis of a Panchayati Adoption Deed (Godh-Nama) dated 24.08.1980 (Annexure P-2/A). The applicant had applied for compassionate appointment and his claim was rejected vide orders dated 03.08.2011 (Annexure P-4), 17.03.2015 (Annexure P-5) and lastly on 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-7). It is further not in dispute that in Civil Suit No. 228 dated 03.03.2016, the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure P-6) declared the applicant and Smt. Nisha Rani to be the adopted children of late Sh. Bishamber Singh and his wife Smt. Chand Kaur, while leaving the question of compassionate appointment to be considered by the Railway authorities as per rules. The policy governing compassionate appointment in Railways dated 07.04.1983 and clarificatory instructions dated 20.05.1988 are also not in dispute.
11- O.A. No. 1008/2020
23. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings as well as the original office record produced by the respondents, I proceed to deal with the rival contentions.
24. The primary objection of the respondents is that the alleged adoption deed (Annexure P-2/A) is not a registered document and that the consent of the biological mother is not reflected therein, and therefore the adoption is not legally valid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. It is further contended that in the absence of a registered adoption deed, the applicant cannot claim consideration for compassionate appointment.
25. At the outset, I find from the perusal of the original office file that there are ample materials placed by the applicant before the authorities to substantiate his status as adopted son of the deceased employee. The original office record, exclusively maintained by the respondents, contains copies of the Ration Card, School Certificates (8th and 10th Class), Aadhaar Card and other documents wherein the name of late Sh. Bishamber Singh stands recorded as father of the applicant. These documents were not disputed contemporaneously during the lifetime of the deceased employee. The consistent reflection of the deceased employee as father in official and public documents carries significant evidentiary value and lends corroboration to the plea of adoption. The doubt of the respondents with regard to the relation of applicant with his father Bishamber Singh is without any basis.
26. Moreover, the learned Civil Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.11.2018 (Annexure P-6) has categorically declared that the applicant and Smt. Nisha Rani are the adopted children of late Sh. 12- O.A. No. 1008/2020 Bishamber Singh and Smt. Chand Kaur. Though the respondents were not parties to the said proceedings, the declaration of status by a competent Civil Court cannot be lightly brushed aside, particularly when no material has been placed on record by the respondents to demonstrate that the said decree has been challenged or set aside. The respondents have no authority to disbelieve the decree passed by a competent Civil Court.
27. The objection of the respondents that the adoption deed is not registered and therefore invalid, in my considered view, is not tenable. In this regard, I am guided by the judgment of the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Sukhpreet Kaur (CWP No.28074 of 2024 (O&M) decided on 13.02.2025) wherein the Hon‟ble High Court while upholding the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 171/2020 observed that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides the manner and method in which an adoption is to be made of a Hindu child in a Hindu family; that adoption can be by way of a registered deed or even without it; however, an act of giving and taking in adoption has to be performed by both the parties, namely the biological parents and the adoptive parents; and that an adoption, which has already been done by way of a customary method or by any such act of giving and taking, may subsequently be reduced into writing and the adoption deed may thereafter be registered. The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
6. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') provides the manners and methods in which an adoption is to be made of a Hindu child in a Hindu Family.
Adoption can be by way of a registered-deed or even without it. 13- O.A. No. 1008/2020 However, an act of giving and taking in adoption has to be performed by both the parties, namely, the biological parents and the adoptive parents. An adoption, which has already been done by way of a customary method or by any such give and take, may be reduced in writing subsequently and the adoption-deed may, thereafter, be registered.
7. Once an adoption-deed is registered, it would be presumed that a valid adoption has taken place with, of course, the right of rebuttal. The provisions regarding such presumption are provided under Section 16 of the Act. The contention of the petitioners that the adoption of respondent no.1 not being in accordance with law on the ground that she has attained the age of majority on the day of the registration of the adoption-deed, is also erroneous. The date of birth of the applicant-respondent no.1 (Sukhpreet Kaur) is 23.03.1997. The registered adoption-deed reflects that the adoption had taken place on 12.01.2010 but the registration could not take place. It is a matter of common knowledge that so far as the School Education Boards are concerned, they would only recognize actual parents of a child for being mentioned in the certificate and the names of father and mother would change only on the presentation of a registered adoption-deed. In June, 2013, there was no registered adoption-deed and, therefore, it is natural that in the Punjab School Education Board Certificate, the names of original parents, instead of adoptive parents, of the applicant-respondent no.1 were mentioned. The same would, therefore, not be a reason to deprive her claim for compassionate appointment on account of demise of her adoptive father Vijay Kumar, who was, admittedly, an employee of the Railways and had died while in service."
28. The above exposition of law clearly establishes that registration of an adoption deed is not essential for validity of adoption. What is essential is the factum of adoption, namely the ceremony of giving and taking and compliance with the requirements of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. In the present case, the Goodh-Nama dated 14- O.A. No. 1008/2020 24.08.1980, coupled with long-standing recognition of the applicant as son in school records and public documents, and further fortified by the declaratory order of the Civil Court, sufficiently establish the factum of adoption.
29. The Railway Board instructions dated 20.05.1988 require "satisfactory proof of adoption valid legally" and recognition under the personal law governing the Railway servant. The respondents have read into the instructions a requirement of compulsory registration which does not exist therein. The policy as well as law does not mandate that the adoption deed must be registered prior to the death of the employee. It only requires that the legal adoption process has been completed and become valid before the date of death. The adoption process by way of a Panchayati Adoption Deed (Godh-Nama) dated 24.08.1980 (Annexure P- 2/A) was completed during the life time of the deceased. Once satisfactory proof of adoption is placed on record and the same is legally recognized under personal law, the condition stands fulfilled.
30. The further objection regarding limitation also does not persuade me to non-suit the applicant. The applicant had been pursuing his claim since 2003 and, on being advised by the authorities to obtain a declaratory decree, he approached the Civil Court and obtained the judgment dated 29.11.2018. The impugned order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) is the culmination of the reconsideration of his claim on the basis of the civil court declaration and therefore constitutes a fresh cause of action. The applicant cannot be faulted for availing legal remedies before appropriate fora as advised.
15- O.A. No. 1008/2020
31. As regards the contention that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, there can be no quarrel with the settled proposition of law. However, once the scheme itself includes adopted son/daughter subject to satisfactory proof of adoption, and the applicant has fulfilled the stipulated conditions, the respondents cannot deny consideration on extraneous or non-existent grounds. The favourable recommendation of Welfare Officer as well as OS/Legal dated 12.09.2014 support the claim of applicant.
32. The plea that the applicant is overage also deserves rejection in the facts of the present case. The delay in consideration of his claim is substantially attributable to the repeated rejections and insistence by the respondents to obtain civil court declaration. The applicant cannot be penalized for time consumed in litigation, which he was compelled to undertake at the instance of the respondents themselves. From the perusal of original records, I also find that the records contain the affidavit dated 21.01.2003 submitted by the deceased employee during his life time, wherein it has been affirmed that he has adopted the applicant long back before the Panchayat and that "in case of his sudden death, I authorize him for job in department". This affidavit was verified by then SDM, Modinagar vide letter dated 07.06.2006 to the effect that the said affidavit was verified by his predecessor.
33. The Hon‟ble High Court of Orissa, recently, following the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court decision, has dismissed the petition of Union of India and held as under:-
(4) Is Adoption Deed compulsorily registrable ?16- O.A. No. 1008/2020
(i) There is another aspect to the matter: the claim of OP No.2 for compassionate appointment is negatived by the petitioners inter alia on the ground that the registered adoption deed is dated 08.02.2010 and therefore said adoption being post-demise of the employee, the conditions of Policy Circular render candidature of OP No.2 ineligible. Neither in Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, 1908 nor under the provisions of 1956 Act, we are shown that the registration of the Adoption Deed is a sine qua non for validity of adoption. In other words, once the requisites of valid adoption, as discussed by Mulla's Hindu Law supra, are met, adoption takes effect, regardless of registration.
Similar view is taken by Punjab & Haryana High Court in Union of India v. Sukhpreet Kaur and by the Karnataka High Court in N.L. Manjunatha v. B.L. Ananda . To put it succinctly, registration is optional. However, Section 16 of 1956 Act raises a presumption of validity a registered Adoption Deed, if conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. In the case at hand, those conditions are not satisfied, inasmuch as adoptive father, namely, the employee was dead & gone when the document was presented for registration.
(ii) The Allahabad High Court in Shanu Kumar v. The Nagar Ayukt Municipal (Commissioner) Nagar Nigam Lko, has held that Administrative Officer cannot question validity of registered adoption deed for rejecting compassionate appointment. The Apex Court vide Chandrasekhara Mudaliar v. Kulnadaivelu Mudaliar , in line with the decisions of Privy Council has expressed the view that the validity of adoption is to be 17- O.A. No. 1008/2020 determined by spiritual rather than temporal considerations, devolution of property being only of secondary importance."
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the applicant has satisfactorily established that he is the legally adopted son of late Sh. Bishamber Singh. The objection of the respondent no. 2 that the adoption deed is invalid for want of registration is not sustainable in law. The decision of respondent no. 2 is without any legal basis and arbitrary. The impugned order dated 20.02.2019 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the claim of the applicant on the aforesaid ground is arbitrary and contrary to the Railway Board instructions governing compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the impugned order (Annexure P-7) is quashed and set aside. The respondent no. 2 is directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the applicable policy and rules, treating him as the adopted son of the deceased employee, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The Original Application stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (J) Dated: 16.02.2026 „mw‟