3 min readChandigarhFeb 14, 2025 09:17 AM IST
First published on: Feb 13, 2025 at 10:54 PM IST
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today dismissed a petition filed by the Union of India and the Railways challenging the appointment on compassionate grounds of the adopted daughter of a deceased railway employee. The bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I Mehta upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) 2023 order directing the Railways to consider her case, emphasizing the validity of her adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
The case revolved around Sukhpreet Kaur, who sought employment in the Railways following the death of her adoptive father, Vijay Kumar, a railway employee. The CAT, in its order dated October 25, 2023, had directed the Railways to consider her claim within three months. However, the Railways challenged this order, arguing that Sukhpreet’s adoption was not legally valid.
Railways’ objection to the adoption deed
The Railways contended that Sukhpreet’s adoption deed was registered on June 2, 2017, when she was over 20 years old. As per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a valid adoption must take place before the adoptee attains majority. The department also pointed out that her Class 10 certificate, issued by the Punjab School Education Board, did not mention Vijay Kumar as her father. Instead, the names of her biological parents were recorded, which, according to the Railways, cast doubt on the legitimacy of her adoption.
It further argued that since the adoption deed was registered much later than the date mentioned for the actual adoption—January 12, 2010—it could not be relied upon. The Railways maintained that the adoption was merely a legal formality done to secure a government job and should not be considered valid.
High Court’s ruling
The High Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, ruled that the objections raised by the Railways were without merit. It held that an adoption deed, once registered, carries a presumption of validity under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. The court observed that an adoption may take place through religious and customary practices and could be recorded in writing later for legal purposes.
The court also cited a recent Supreme Court judgment in Prema Gopal vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority and others, delivered on January 29, 2025. The apex court had ruled that the date of registration of an adoption deed does not determine its validity and that the adoption is deemed effective from the date when the ceremony was performed. The High Court found that in Sukhpreet’s case, the adoption had taken place in 2010, even though it was formally registered in 2017.
Furthermore, the court noted that school records often do not reflect adoptive parents’ names, as educational boards typically recognize biological parents. This, it said, could not be used as a ground to deny Sukhpreet’s claim.
Relief for the adopted daughter
The court emphasised that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to provide financial relief to the families of deceased employees. Denying Sukhpreet’s claim based on technical objections would defeat the very objective of the policy. It found no reason to interfere with the CAT’s order and dismissed the Railways’ petition.
The court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) 2023 order directing the Railways to consider her case, emphasizing the validity of her adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Share
