Adopted Son’s Claim to Deceased Railway Worker’s Benefits Gets Fresh Decision as CAT Orders Inquiry Into Name Mismatch

The applicant claimed to be the adopted son of late Budhan Soren, a Railway employee who died in service on 23 June 2008.

He relied on a registered deed of adoption dated 6 August 2001, identifying Budhan Soren and Barki Besra as his adoptive parents.

The Railway records, however, listed the employee as Budhan Manji and recorded only his wife as a family member. The widow died in 2012, and the employee’s settlement benefits remained unpaid.

The applicant sought production of the service records and payment of benefits; the respondents disputed his claim, citing the absence of adoption particulars in the service record and discrepancies in the employee’s name and the applicant’s recorded age.

Rule 75 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 governs family pension and related benefits and includes legally adopted children within the definition of “family,” subject to the conditions prescribed by the Rules.

The Tribunal also held that service records alone cannot determine the civil status of a person claiming legal adoption where a registered deed executed before the employee’s death has been produced; the deed and relevant records must be assessed together.

The Tribunal noted that the respondents did not allege that the registered deed was forged or fabricated, nor had any competent court invalidated the adoption.

The absence of the adoption from the employee’s service records was therefore not, by itself, determinative.

However, the mismatch between the names “Budhan Soren” and “Budhan Manji,” and the difference between the applicant’s stated age in the deed and the ages recorded in his Aadhaar and EPIC documents, remained material matters requiring clarification.

The Tribunal accordingly directed the competent Railway authority to assess the deed, other documents and service records, and to make a specific finding on whether the two names referred to the same person.

The exercise was to be completed within twelve weeks of receipt of the order.

If the applicant was found entitled to benefits, the admissible amount was to be calculated and paid; any rejection, in whole or in part, was to be communicated by a reasoned and speaking order within the prescribed period.

No order as to costs was made.