Registered Adoption Deed Relates Back to Date of Ceremony, Preserving Rights to Compassionate Appointment.

The petitioner sought a mandamus for compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules following the death of his adoptive mother, Smt. Sharda Devi, a Basic Health Worker

In previous litigation (Writ Petition No. 19158 of 2017), the Court initially refused to direct appointment because the adoption deed was registered in 2014 when the petitioner was a major, while the adoption allegedly occurred in 1997

the Court directed the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) to examine the deed's validity. On 04.07.2018, the I.G. upheld the validity of the adoption deed

The State resisted the current petition, arguing the adoption was invalid under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ("the Act of 1956") because the petitioner was a major on the date of registration

The court primarily applied Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which creates a legal presumption in favor of a registered adoption document

It relied on the principle of "relating back," as seen in Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority & Ors. (2025), which establishes that a deed of adoption relates back to the date religious ceremonies were performed

Union of India v. Sukhpreet Kaur (2025), holding that registration is a formal recognition of a prior act, and the names of original parents in school records prior to registration do not invalidate the adoption claim

The court also noted that a fresh cause of action negates the principle of res judicata per Daryao v. State of U.P.

The court reasoned that the adoption ceremony took place in 1997 when the petitioner was approximately six years old, satisfying the requirements of the Act of 1956

Although the deed was registered in 2014—at which point the petitioner was a major—the court held that the legal effects of the registered document relate back to the original ceremony in 1997

The court emphasized that under Section 16 of the Act of 1956, the registered deed carries a presumption of validity which the State failed to rebut

Since the Inspector General (Registration & Stamps) had already upheld the document's validity following a prior court order, the respondents could not intermittently challenge the petitioner’s status as a "son" to deny his claim for compassionate appointment

The court issued a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner’s case under the Dying-in-Harness Rules

The petitioner was directed to submit a fresh representation within two weeks, to be decided by the authorities within four weeks thereafter. The petition was disposed of accordingly