Authorities must assess bona fide pre-existing adoption, not reject compassionate appointment solely by the registered deed’s date.

The petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of Late Reshma Devi, an employee of the North Bihar Power Distribution Company Ltd. Reshma Devi, the petitioner’s maternal grandmother, had adopted him through affidavits dated 18 February 1999 and 22 July 1999, followed by a registered adoption deed dated 12 January 2001.

The petitioner was born on 1 March 1985 and was below fifteen years of age when the affidavits were executed. Reshma Devi died in harness on 25 November 2007. The petitioner approached the authorities in January 2010 seeking compassionate appointment and death-cum-retirement benefits.

He obtained a succession certificate in 2013 and a family-members certificate in 2017, after which he submitted a formal application for compassionate appointment on 18 March 2017.

The respondents rejected the application on the grounds that the adoption violated Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the application was beyond the five-year period prescribed by Standing Order No. 756 dated 18 February 1994, and the succession certificate did not confer any right to compassionate appointment.

Whether the petitioner’s adoption was invalid under Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 merely because the registered adoption deed was executed after he had completed fifteen years of age, despite the earlier affidavits and alleged pre-existing relationship of adoption.

Whether the petitioner’s claim was barred by delay under Standing Order No. 756 dated 18 February 1994, when he had initially approached the authorities within five years of the employee’s death but submitted the prescribed form later pursuant to the respondents’ directions.

Whether the respondents could reject the claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that the succession certificate authorised receipt of service benefits but did not itself confer entitlement to compassionate appointment, after accepting the same adoption documents for release of those benefits.

The Court applied Section 10(iv) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which ordinarily prohibits adoption of a person who has completed fifteen years unless a contrary custom or usage applies.

It also relied on the principle that adoption is completed by the factum of giving and taking, and that a subsequently registered adoption deed may evidence an earlier adoption; Section 16 raises a presumption in favour of the validity of a registered adoption deed unless disproved.

Relying on Most. Shitali Devi & Anr. v. Union of India, C.W.J.C. No. 7300 of 2001, the Court held that a bona fide adoption or foster-parent relationship should not be rejected through a rigid or hyper-technical interpretation of compassionate-appointment rules, though fraud or fabrication may be investigated.

The Court further applied the principle that a claimant should not suffer for delay attributable to the authorities and that an administrative authority cannot adopt inconsistent positions regarding the same documents and relationship.

The Court held that the respondents had focused mechanically on the date of the registered adoption deed, 12 January 2001, without considering the affidavits of 1999, when the petitioner was below fifteen years of age, or determining whether the adoption relationship was genuine and pre-existing.

Since there was no finding that the affidavits or adoption documents were fabricated, rejection solely on the basis of Section 10(iv) was unsustainable.

The Court also found that the petitioner had approached the authorities in January 2010, within five years of Reshma Devi’s death, and that the subsequent delay resulted from the respondents’ directions to obtain a succession certificate, family-members certificate, and prescribed application form.

Finally, having accepted the succession certificate and adoption documents for releasing the deceased employee’s service benefits, the respondents could not inconsistently disregard the same relationship while considering compassionate appointment.

It directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, treating him as the legally adopted son and dependent of Late Reshma Devi and without insisting upon the technical objections rejected by the Court.

The reconsideration was to be completed through a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receipt or production of the judgment.

The writ petition was allowed to that extent, with no order as to costs.