Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Manoj Kumar Pathak vs South Eastern Railway on 14 November, 2024
1 OA No. /051/00508/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
RANCHI CIRCUIT BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 051/00508/2022
Reserved on: 22.08. 2024
Pronounced on:14.11.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]
Manoj Kumar Pathak, Aged 58 years, son of Late M.K.
Pathak, now posted as Sr. T.G.T. (Trained Graduate Teacher),
Mixed Higher Secondary School, English Medium, S.E. Rly,
M.H.SS/E.M., Chakradharpur Division, PO & PS-
Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum West-833102.
.......... Applicant.
-Versus-
Patna
Bench
1. Union of India through General Manager, S.E. Railway,
PO & PS-Garden Reach, Kolkata -43.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, S.E. Railway, CKP
Division, PO & PS Chakradharpur, District Singhbhum
West-833102.
3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, CKP Division, S.E.
Railway, PO & PS Chakradharpur, Distt. Singhbhum
West-833102.
4. Asst. Personnel Officer-IV, CKP Division, S.E. Railway,
PO & PS - Chakradharpur, Distt. Singhbhum West-
833102.
........Respondents
For Applicant:- Mrs. M.M. Pal, Senior Advocate
For Respondents:- Sh. Rajendra Krishna, Senior CGSC with
Sh. Amit Sinha, Addl. CGSC.
ORDER
PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [JUDICIAL] By way of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, the applicant seeking direction to respondents to record in the service records of the applicant. The correct date of birth of his 2 OA No. /051/00508/2022 adopted daughter as 09.07.2004 based on Birth Certificate and Board's Certificate of the adopted daughter of the applicant and extend all consequential benefits.
PRAYER
2. Applicant has filed the OA claiming following relief(s) [as extracted from OA] -
"8.1. The respondents be directed to correct the date of birth of petitioner's adopted daughter namely Esha Pathak as 09.07.2004 in place of 09.07.2005 on the basis of Birth Certificate and Board's certificate issued by the competent authority.
Patna 8.2 The respondents be directed to make necessary Bench correction about the date of birth of the adopted daughter of the petitioner as 09.07.2004 in all service records and be directed to extend all consequential benefits thereon.
8.3 The respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner and to make necessary correction of date of birth of his adopted daughter as 09.07.2004 on the basis of Board's certificate and birth certificate.
8.4 The respondents be directed not to sit tight over the matter for un-limited period and to make necessary correction of date of birth of his adopted daughter within a specified period.
8.5 Any other relief or reliefs for which the applicant is entitled to."
FACTS IN BRIEF
3. Briefly stated facts as adumbrated by the applicant in the OA are that he was initially appointed as Primary Teacher vide Order dated 13.11.1998 and promoted to the post of T.G.T. vide Order dated 14.12.2005 and working in South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur. The applicant adopted through a registered deed of adoption dated 07.09.2010 daughter Esha Pathak D/o Shri Shailendra Kumar Pathak r/o Chiranjilal 3 OA No. /051/00508/2022 Ward No.15 Chakradharpur Distt. Singhbhum (West) having date of birth as 09.07.2004. The competent authority vide Order dated 14.10.2011 recorded vetted the adoption deed and in service record entered name of Miss Esha Pathak DOB:
09.07.2005 as daughter of the applicant for all purpose. The respondents recorded in service records, date of birth as 09.07.2005 on the basis of the registered Adoption Deed dated 07.09.2010.
4. It is the case of the applicant as set out in the OA that Patna Bench actual date of birth is 09.07.2004 of the adopted daughter as evident from Birth Certificate, date of registration is 25.08.2005 and the Birth Certificate issued on 14.03.2018. So also in the CBSE, admit card for Class X examination - 2019, date of birth is 0907.2004, but due to inadvertence the date of birth of adopted daughter recorded as 09.07.2005 based on the adoption deed.
5. Applicant has also made averments in the OA that due to inadvertence date of birth recorded as 09.07.2005 based on adoption deed, whereas correct date of birth is 09.07.2004 as evident from Birth Certificate and Admit Card of Class X of the adopted daughter. The applicant filed representations dated 10.04.2019 and 29.06.2019 to rectify the date of birth of his adopted daughter as 09.07.2004 in place of 09.07.2005 based on Birth Certificate and Admit Card of Class X, in the service record but respondents directed applicant to approached 4 OA No. /051/00508/2022 before the competent authority for correction of date of birth of her daughter in the Adoption Deed dated 07.09.2010. But the registering authority for correction of DOB in the Adoption Deed dated 07.09.2010 informed vide Order dated 24.08.2020 (Annexure A-5) that registration of documents of adoption deeds is done in "NGDRS Software" and in NGDRS Software, there is no provision for correction/amendment in the Adoption Deed and refused to correct the Adoption Deed dated 07.09.2010. Patna Bench
6. Per contra, the respondents are contesting the claim of applicant to correct date of birth as 09.07.2004 in place of 09.07.2005 of his adopted daughter recorded on the basis of Adoption Deed dated 07.09.2010, in the service record. The respondents in the written statement stated that the applicant
- T.G.T. under South Eastern Railway Mixed Higher Secondary School, Chakradharpur adopted a girl child namely Ms Esha Pathak vide Adoption deed dated 07.09.2010, executed before the Sub-Registrar Chakradharpur, registered at Serial No.357, Deed No. IV-2, and on date of registration the DOB of the child mentioned as five years on date of execution of adoption deed.
7. The respondents have also averred in the WS that the adoption deed, registered document was vetted and on the acceptance of the registered adoption deed and based on certificate dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure R/1) issued by the Principal St. Mary English Medium School, Chakardharpur, 5 OA No. /051/00508/2022 the date of birth of adopted daughter was recorded as 09.07.2005 for all purpose in Railway records of applicant. The applicant also submitted pass declarations in year 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017 and DOB 09.07.2005 was mentioned and based on said DOB 09.07.2005 applicant availed Railway passes and privilege ticket Order in favour of the adopted daughter. So also the applicant availed Children Education Allowance (in short CEA) in name of adopted daughter mentioning DOB as 09.07.2005 and annexed school certificate Patna dated 26.03.2018 with DOB 09.07.2005 of adopted daughter. Bench
8. The respondents also made averments in the WS that the applicant on the basis of newly issued Birth Certificate dated 14.03.2018 and admit Card of CBSE exam of year 2019 trying to make corrections of the date of birth 09.07.2005 of the adopted daughter. The Railways recorded date of birth of adopted daughter based on legal vetting of the adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 and certificate dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure R/1) issued by Principal St. Mary English Medium School, Chakardharpur, and recorded DOB as 09.07.2005 for all purposes in Railway Records. So also in application for CEA dated 09.04.2018 annexed Sri Chaitanya School, Visakhapatnam Certificate and DOB is 09.07.2005. The DOB of adopted daughter till class-VIII in year 2018 was recorded as 09.07.2005 by applicant to avail benefits of CEA and pass facilities and afterthought in matriculation examination might mentioned DOB as 09.07.2004 instead of 09.07.2005 to secure 6 OA No. /051/00508/2022 advantage of minimum age limit to appear in CBSE, Class X exam.
9. Rejoinder has been filed by the applicant denying averments made in the WS that it is undisputed that in the adoption deed age was mentioned as five years as on date of execution dated 07.09.2010 and accordingly in service record DOB 09.07.2005 was recorded for all purposes and in St. Mary School Certificate dated 15.09.2011, the DOB recorded as 09.07.2005 and in pass declaration in years 2012, 2013, 2015 Patna Bench and 2017 and CEA applications DOB 09.07.2005 was mentioned. The applicant subsequently came to know Birth Registration Certificate dated 14.03.2018, date of registration dated 25.08.2005 and made a request to correct the DOB as 09.07.2004 in place of 09.07.2005.
SUBMISSIONS
10. Mrs. Mani Mala Pal, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Pushpanjali Kumari, Advocate appearing for the applicant vociferously canvassed and can be summarized as -
(i) Applicant while working as TGT in Railway School adopted a girl child namely Esha Pathak vide registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 and DOB of adopted child was mentioned as five years on date of execution of the said deed. Based on school certificate dated 15.09.2011 with DOB 09.07.2005 issued by St. Mary 7 OA No. /051/00508/2022 English Medium School, Chakardharpur and adoption deed the competent authority recorded DOB 09.07.2005 in service record of the applicant.
(ii) Applicant came to know about the inadvertent mistake about date of birth wrongly mentioned in the adoption deed dated 07.09.2010. The Birth Registration Certificate issued on 14.03.2018 also mentioned date of registration is 25.08.2005 and actual date of birth 09.07.2004 is mentioned in the Birth Registration Certificate. Patna Bench
(iii) The Date of Birth recorded in the Birth Registration Certificate of the adopted child is conclusive and also correctly recorded in admit card, CBSE mark-sheet as 09.07.2004 and deserves to be accepted directing respondents to correct service record of the applicant accordingly.
(iv) Due to incorrect mention of age of five years on date of execution of adoption deed of the girl child, the mistake occurred in the adoption deed and later on found that correct date of birth 09.07.2004 is mentioned in Birth Registration Certificate and school records.
(v) Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIDCO Vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 283, held that the deaths and birth register maintained by statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness and should prevail over entry made in the 8 OA No. /051/00508/2022 school register. So also Full Bench of Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi in case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s BCCL, 2007 (3) JLJR 726 (FB) held that date of birth recorded in the matriculation certificate duly authenticated by the Education Board is a conclusive proof of age including service record.
11. Shri Rajendra Krishna, Senior CGSC with Shri Amit Sinha, Additional CGSC appearing for the respondents vehemently argued and can be summarized as - Patna Bench
(i) Applicant adopted the girl child by execution of registered deed of adoption dated 07.09.2010 before Sub-Registrar, Chakradharpur vide registration No.Srl.No.357 Deed No. IV-2 and the date of birth on date of registration was mentioned as five years in the registered adoption deed. The applicant also produced certificate dated 15.09.2011 issued by Principal St. Mary English Medium School, Chakardharpur with date of birth as 09.07.2005 (Nine July two thousand five) and on legal vetting dated 18.05.2011 by the senior Law Officer, SER, Kolkata, the competent authority accepted the adoption deed of Ms.Esha Pathak and communicated to the applicant vide Order dated 14.1.2011. The date of birth of daughter of applicant accepted as 09.07.2005 based on registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 and school certificate 9 OA No. /051/00508/2022 dated 15.09.2011 provided by the applicant for legal vetting.
(ii) The date of birth 09.07.2005 of the adopted daughter recorded in the service record of the applicant based on registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010. The applicant submitted pass declarations in year 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017 and himself mentioned DOB as 09.07.2005 of the adopted daughter. So also applicant applied for Child Education Allowance (CEA) many times Patna Bench in name of adopted daughter with DOB as 09.07.2005. The applicant on 26.03.2018 annexed DOB certificate of adopted child with DOB 09.07.2005 issued by Sri Chaitanya School for reimbursement of CEA for financial year 2017-2018 and in the form dated 09.04.2018 also mentioned in his writing DOB 09.07.2005.
(iii) The applicant to take advantage of securing minimum age 14 years in CBSE, Class-X exam has approached Registrar/Executive Officer to issue Birth Certificate issued on 14.03.2018 (Annexure A-3), whereas as per sub-sec (3) of Section 13 of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for brevity referred as Act, 1969) - mandates that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its appearance that can also be registered and such registration shall happen only after an order by a Magistrate of the first class under Sub-sec (3) on 10 OA No. /051/00508/2022 verifying the correctness of the birth or death. Thus, the birth of adopted daughter as per Section 13 of Act, 1969 after 30 days within one year of birth shall be registered with written permission of JMFC and in present case DOB 09.07.2004 registered and date of issue of Birth Certificate is 14.03.2018. So also admit card, class-X is dated 2019. The applicant is seeking correction of DOB as 09.07.2004 contrary to entries of registered adoption deed and contrary to own record submitted earlier and Patna there is presumption of correctness for registered Bench adoption deed, hence the OA is not maintainable.
(iv) Service record of applicant recorded date of birth 09.07.2005 of his adopted daughter based on registered adoption deed. There is statutory - legal presumption in favour of valid adoption unless it is disproved before the competent court or rectified by Competent Court.
(v) In view of Section 15 - valid adoption not to be cancelled and Section 16 - presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption made in compliance of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (in short Act, 1956), applicant ought to have approached competent Civil Court under Section 26 for rectification of the adoption deed dated 09.07.2010 under Specific Relief Act, 1963 (in short Act, 1963) and this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to change entry of date of birth 11 OA No. /051/00508/2022 09.07.2005 based on legal vetting of the adoption deed duly registered in view of statutory presumption as valid adoption unless rectified by Competent Civil Court under Section 26 of Act, 1963.
DISCUSSION AND FINDING
12. This Tribunal has bestowed anxious considerations on the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
13. The admitted facts are that applicant working as TGT Patna Bench under Railway School and adopted a girl child namely Ms. Esha Pathak vide registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010, executed before Sub Registrar, Chakradharpur vide Serial No.357, Deed No. IV-2. The date of birth of the adopted child mentioned as five years as on date of execution of adoption deed dated 07.09.2010. The applicant submitted registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 and Certificate dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure R/1) by Principal St. Mary English Medium School, Chakradharpur with date of birth 09.07.2005 of the adopted daughter. The railway authorities on legal vetting of adoption deed accepted adoption of adopted daughter with DOB 09.07.2005 and recorded in service record of the applicant. The DOB 09.07.2005, recorded is based on the registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010.
14. It is also the admitted fact that applicant submitted pass declarations in year 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017, and many 12 OA No. /051/00508/2022 times applied for CEA in name of adopted daughter and mentioned DOB as 09.07.2005. So also in reimbursement of CEA for year 2017-2018 dated 09.04.2018. The applicant applied and mentioned DOB 09.07.2005 and also annexed DOB certificate with DOB 09.07.2005 issued by Principal, Sri Chaintanya School, Vishakhapatnam.
15. The dispute in the present case is that the stand of the respondents that based on registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 and certificate dated 15.09.2011, by Principal St. Patna Bench Mary English Medium School, Chakradharpur based on official records of the school. The entry related of DOB 09.07.2005 was accepted and recorded in service records of the applicant. The adoption deed is a registered document under Section 16 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, there is presumption in favour of valid adoption unless it is duly rectified by competent Court - Civil Court under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. Respondents have also taken stand that applicant want to take advantage of securing minimum age limit based on DOB 09.07.2004 and as afterthought obtained Birth Certificate dated 14.03.2018, with incorrect DOB 09.07.2004 whereas under Section 13(3) of Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (for brevity referred as Act, 1969), any birth which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only on order of JMFC after verifying the correctness of the birth and on payment of prescribed fee.
13 OA No. /051/00508/2022
THE ISSUE
16. From the above submissions of the parties and material placed on record, the issue which arises for determination -
"Whether the respondents are justified on refusal to accede to applicant's claim for correction of DOB 09.07.2005 of his adopted daughter initially made based on registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 without rectification of the instrument/registered adoption deed by Competent Patna Bench Court?"
RULE OF LAW
17. The relevant provisions germane to consider and answer controversy raised by the parties, reproduced as -
(i) Sections 15 & 16 of the Hindi Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 reads as -
"15. Valid adoption not to be cancelled.―No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth.
16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.―Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is produced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved".
(ii) Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 reads as -
"26. When instrument may be rectified.--(1) When, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the 14 OA No. /051/00508/2022 parties, a contract or other instrument in writing [not being the articles of association of a company to which the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), applies] does not express their real intention, then--
(a) either party or his representative in interest may institute a suit to have the instrument rectified; or
(b) the plaintiff may, in any suit in which any right arising under the instrument is in issue, claim in his pleading that the instrument be rectified; or
(c) a defendant in any such suit as is referred to in clause (b), may, in addition to any other defence open to him, ask for rectification of the instrument.
(2) If, in any suit in which a contract or other instrument is sought to be rectified under sub-section (1), the court finds that the instrument, through fraud or mistake, does not express the real intention of the parties, the court may, in its discretion, direct rectification of the instrument so as to express that intention, so far as this can be done without prejudice Patna to rights acquired by third persons in good faith and Bench for value.
(3) A contract in writing may first be rectified, and then if the party claiming rectification has so prayed in his pleading and the court thinks fit, may be specifically enforced.
(4) No relief for the rectification of an instrument shall be granted to any party under this section unless it has been specifically claimed: Provided that where a party has not claimed any such relief in his pleading, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to amend the pleading on such terms as may be just for including such claim."
(iii) Section 13 of Registration of Births and Death Act, 1969 reads as follows:-
"13. Delayed registration of births and deaths.--
(1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar after the expiry of the period specified therefor, but within thirty days of its occurrence, shall be registered on payment of such late fee as may be prescribed.
(2) Any birth or death of which delayed information is given to the Registrar after thirty days but within one year of its occurrence shall be registered only with the written permission of the prescribed authority and on payment of the prescribed fee and the production of an affidavit made before a notary public or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government.
(3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a magistrate of the first class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the 15 OA No. /051/00508/2022 birth or death and on payment of the prescribed fee.
(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any action that may be taken against a person for failure on his part to register any birth or death within the time specified therefor and any such birth or death may be registered during the pendency of any such action."
(Emphasis supplied]
(iv) The Rule 9 of Rules 1999 for Bihar Registration of Births and Deaths specifically prescribes authority for delayed registration and fee payable reads as:
"Rule-9: Authority for delayed registration and fee payable thereof-
(1) Any birth or death of which information is given to the registrar after the expiry of the period specified in Patna Bench Rule 5, but within 30 days of its occurrence shall be registered as payment of late fee of rupee two.
(2) Any birth or death of which information given to the register after 30 days but within one year of its registered only with the permission of the officer prescribed in this behalf and on payment of a late fee of rupees five.
(3) Any birth or death which has not been registered within one year office, shall be registered only on an order of a Magistrate of the first class or a presidency Magistrate and on payment of a late fee of rupees ten."
[Emphasis Supplied]
18. As evident from the admitted facts that applicant adopted the girl child vide registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010. In the registered adoption deed date of birth of the adopted child was mentioned as five years on the date of execution of the adoption deed. The adoption deed was referred to Senior Law Officer, Kolkata for legal vetting. The Senior Law Officer, S.E.R., Garden Reach vide letter dated 18.05.2011 had vetted 16 OA No. /051/00508/2022 the adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 towards adoption of Esha Pathak and accepted vide Order dated 14.10.2011.
19. The respondents recorded date of birth adopted daughter as 09.072005 for all purposes in the service record of the applicant. Applicant himself furnished requisite certificate dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure R/1) as per record DOB 09.07.2005 was recorded as per Primary School records provided by the applicant.
20. Applicant further made due declaration for Railway Patna Bench Passes and Privilege Ticket Order in favour of adopted child in year 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2017. So also applicant applied for CEA, many times with DOB 09.07.2005 and Principal Sri Chaitanya School, Visakhapatnam on 26.03.2018 issued DOB certificate with DOB 09.07.2005.
21. Applicant placed heavy reliance on Birth Certificate dated 14.03.2018 issued on 14.03.2018 with DOB 09.07.2004 by Executive Officer, Chakradhar Nagar Parishad, the date of registration shown as 25.08.2005. Admittedly, the Birth Certificate issued on 14.03.2018 after registration of the adoption deed dated 07.09.2010. So also contrary to fact of age of adopted daughter mentioned in registered adoption deed. So also the primary School record dated 15.09.2011 (Annexure R/1), the DOB as per school record is 09.07.2005 submitted by the applicant. The applicant is estopped from disputing it as per the rule of estoppel as laid down in Section 115 of the 17 OA No. /051/00508/2022 Indian Evidence Act, 1972. The applicant was aware of the true date of birth 09.07.2005 of the adopted daughter and in registered adoption deed also declared. So also based on legal vetting of the adoption deed DOB 09.07.2005 duly recorded in service record of applicant.
22. So far as based on subsequent events like issuance of Birth Certificate dated 14.03.2018. The applicant seeking modification of DOB of adopted child from 09.07.2005 to 09.07.2004. Section 13 of Act, 1969 deals with delayed Patna Bench registration of births and deaths - any birth or death of which information is given to the Registrar, Birth and Death, after the expiry of the period specified, but within 30 days of its occurrence shall be registered on payment of such late fee. Any birth or death of which delayed information given after 30 days, but within one year shall be registered with written permission of prescribed authority and payment of prescribed fee.
23. Sub-section (3) of Section 13 of Act, 1969 mandates that any birth or death which has not been registered within one year of its appearance that can also be registered and such registration shall happen only after an order by a Magistrate of the First Class - JMFC under Sub-Section (3) on verifying the correctness of the birth or death. So also Rule 9 of Bihar Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 1999 provide specific 18 OA No. /051/00508/2022 provision only on order of JMFC if not registered within one year.
24. Birth Certificate, issued on 14.03.2018 for DOB 09.07.2004 of adopted child shown date of registration 25.08.2005 beyond one year and date of issue of the Birth Certificate is dated 14.03.2018 and no legs to stand and ultra vires to the provisions of parent Act, 1969 and Rules, 1999, corresponding Act, 1969 which holds the field.
25. The Birth Certificate issued on 14.03.2018 ultra vires to Patna Bench the parent Act, 1969 and Rules, 1999 has no legs to stand being afterthought not based on any material document. So also based on said Birth Certificate dated 14.03.2018 for DOB 09.07.2004 DOB recorded in admit card and matriculation certificate is contrary to entry made in service record based on registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010.
26. The admitted fact of the matter that on the basis of registered Deed of Adoption dated 07.09.2010 the competent authority of Railways has approved adoption of Miss Esha Pathak, with date of birth 09.07.2005 as his own daughter for all purposes. The Order dated 14.10.2011, approval for adoption was issued with certification of Senior Law Officer GRC vide his letter dated 18.05.2011 and not been challenged.
27. In the service record of the applicant, the employer has recorded date of birth 09.07.2005 of the adopted daughter namely Ms Esha Pathak and based on the factum from 19 OA No. /051/00508/2022 registered Deed of Adoption dated 07.09.2010 and same is the admitted fact.
28. The adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 is evidenced by a registered adoption deed and NGDRS Software does not permit NGDRS Software application for deed of adoption any corrections/amendments.
29. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 lays down the rule of presumption which requires that when there is a duly registered deed of adoption the Court Patna Bench shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance of the provisions of the Act unless and until it is disproved. This is no doubt a rebuttable presumption and the onus is upon the person challenging before competent court of law such adoption to rebut it.
30. Mrs. M.M. Pal, Senior Advocate, learned counsel appearing for applicant placed much reliance on precedent in case of CIDCO Vs. Vashudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (supra) and Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. (supra).
31. But it is settled position of law that judgment has got no universal application rather the judgment is to be tested on the basis of fact of each case. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others [2014 (5 SCC 75). The relevant paragraphs 47 which 20 OA No. /051/00508/2022 reads as under -
"47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The court should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact-situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."
[Emphasis supplied]
32. On examining the case of CIDCO Vs. Vashudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (supra), The Hon'ble Supreme Court examined that employer was bound by own records and Patna Bench absence of any proof that DOB was recorded at the instance of guardian of respondent than only Birth register entry revises presumption. Whereas case in hand, the applicant himself furnished registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 and school certificate for recording DOB as 09.07.2005 of adopted daughter and later on seeking modification in DOB in year 2018 produced Birth Registration Certificate dated 14.03.2018 ultra vires to Section 13(3) of Act, 1969 and Rules, 1999 and Class-X marksheet based on the Birth Certificate dated 14.03.2018. The facts of present case are different and with due respect the law laid down in the case cited is not attracted in present case in hand.
33. In case of Kamta Pandey Vs. M/s. B.C.C.L. (supra), Their Lordships was seisin with dispute about Date of Birth in matriculation certificate 01.07.1951 and respondents insisted on the date of birth recorded in Form-B Register- statutory 21 OA No. /051/00508/2022 one. Their Lordships was dealing with question - "Whether the date of birth recorded in the Matriculation Certificate duly authenticated should be considered as the conclusive proof of age or the age determined by Medical Board and other service record?" Hon'ble Court held that Matriculation Certificate was obtained by applicant before his appointment and same should be taken note for determining the DOB in light of Bilateral Agreement of the Company. So far as present case on hand relates to entry of DOB of adopted daughter based on Patna registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 and recorded as Bench per legal vetting dated 14.10.2011 (Annexure A-2) of the adoption deed. The facts of both the cases are different and law laid down by Their Lordships with greatest respect is not attracted in case in hand.
CONCLUSION
34. In view whereof, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in action of the respondents and the issue is decided against the applicant and do not call for any interference by this Tribunal.
35. However, liberty is granted to applicant to approach appropriate forum for adjudication of matter relating to rectification of registered adoption deed dated 07.09.2010 to be dealt on its own merits.
36. The OA being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed.
22 OA No. /051/00508/2022
37. There shall be no order as to costs.
38. As a sequel thereof, pending M.A. (s), if any, also stands disposed of.
39. The Order passed be uploaded on Website forthwith.
(Ajay Pratap Singh) Judicial Member.
Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
na/-
Patna Bench