Railways must consider registered adoption and civil-court findings before rejecting an adopted son’s family pension claim.

Sonu Kumar claimed family pension as the legally adopted son of railway employee Late Sant Lal, relying on a registered Adoption Deed dated 14 May 2010, which Sant Lal had submitted to the Railway authorities but later withdrew.

Sant Lal died on 12 February 2012, when Kumar was a minor.

The respondents disputed the adoption, principally because the deed did not state Kumar’s date of birth, and rejected his pension claim by order dated 2 July 2024.

Civil proceedings had resulted in a Succession Certificate in Kumar’s favour, and the related appeal was dismissed; the respondents did not produce any subsequent court order setting those proceedings aside.

The Tribunal had earlier directed the respondents to decide Kumar’s representation by a reasoned order.

Kumar challenged the rejection in this application.

1. Whether the respondents could reject Kumar’s family-pension claim principally because the registered Adoption Deed omitted his date of birth and had later been withdrawn, without properly considering the civil proceedings and other relevant material.

2. Whether, if Kumar’s status as Sant Lal’s legally adopted son was established, he fell within the family-pension provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 provides a rebuttable presumption that an adoption recorded in a registered document, signed by the persons giving and taking the child in adoption, complies with the Act.

In Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs., (2013) 4 SCC 97, the Supreme Court explained the operation of that presumption and observed that mere technicalities should not defeat an adoption where the registered deed has not been disproved.

The Tribunal also referred to Jai Singh v. Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC 634, on the presumption attaching to a registered adoption document.

Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 includes a legally adopted son or daughter within the railway servant’s family, subject to the applicable age and marital-status conditions.

The Tribunal held that the omission of Kumar’s date of birth from the Adoption Deed was not, by itself, conclusive proof that the adoption was invalid, particularly given the registered deed, the civil proceedings and the absence of any later court order setting aside the adoption-related findings or Succession Certificate.

The payment of terminal benefits was not treated as independently creating a right to family pension, but was relevant to the respondents’ position that Kumar’s relationship to Sant Lal had not been established.

Because the impugned order did not adequately assess this cumulative material or apply Rule 75(19)(b)(iii), the respondents’ rejection could not stand.

It directed the respondents to reconsider Kumar’s claim in light of Rule 75(19)(b)(iii), determine the period of family pension admissible under the applicable rules and calculate any arrears, issuing a reasoned order and completing the exercise within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

Any admissible pension and arrears were to be released accordingly.

No costs were awarded.