Can a late adoption deed help secure compassionate appointment? Chhattisgarh High Court rejects claim over 22-year delay

22-year delay

• The court noted that the adoption deed appears to have been prepared only in 1998 and was registered on February 19, 1998, though the alleged adoption was said to have taken place in March 1976.
• The evidence placed on record showed that none of the witnesses clearly stated where the give-and-take ceremony of adoption had taken place.
• There was also a contradiction in the statements of witnesses regarding the season in which the alleged adoption had taken place.
• None of the witnesses has named the other community members in whose presence the ceremony of give and take had taken place.
• The deed of adoption points out that adoption took place in March 1976, but it was registered only in February 1998, which shows that the adoption deed was prepared only in the year 1998 and not at the time of the alleged date of adoption.
• It was placed on record that the late Rao was childless. He and his wife had requested the biological father of the man to give him up for adoption.
• When the man was about five to six years old, his biological parents allegedly gave him up for adoption to Rao and Laxmi Bai.
• The man claimed that he had been residing with his adoptive parents since childhood and that an adoption deed was later executed and registered on February 19, 1998.
• His application for compassionate appointment was rejected in November 2006 and again in February 2007.
• The high court held that the trial court’s order declaring the man as the adopted son was not sustainable in the eyes of the law and set it aside.

Justice Parth P Sahu noted that the adoption deed was registered in 1998, though the alleged adoption was said to have taken place in 1976.

‘Raised by adoptive parents’

• The man filed a case seeking to be declared as the adopted son of the late Rao and Laxmi Bai, who were allegedly childless.
• He further claimed that his father, Janak Ram Yadav, and Rao were known to each other as they were friends.
• He claimed that on the request made by Rao, his biological parents agreed to give him up for adoption.
• He also pleaded that when he was about five to six years old, he was given to Rao and his wife, Laxmi Bai, in accordance with the customs prevailing in their community.
• He further claimed that the give-and-take ceremony of adoption was performed during his childhood.
• The man further claimed that he was brought up and grew up along with his adoptive father and mother.
• During his lifetime, his alleged adoptive father nominated him as a nominee in the Provident Fund as well as in group insurance, and he was also declared to be a son in his service record.
• It was also pleaded that a deed of adoption was executed and registered in February 1998.
• However, the railway administrations have refused to accept the registered deed of adoption, denying him the compassionate appointment and therefore, the man filed a case.

‘Adoption in accordance with law’

• Appearing for the railways, deputy solicitor general Ramakant Mishra submitted in the adoption deed that the man’s date of birth was before March 1976.
• This suggests that on the date of execution of the adoption deed, the man’s age was above 21 years, and therefore, adoption on the date of registration was not valid.
• It was also submitted that for the adoption of a male child, the age of the child should not be more than 15 years.
• In service records, there is no mention of a successor, and the claim as adopted son was made after a long time from the date of death of his alleged adoptive father, Rao, who died in January 2001.
• The trial court’s finding that the man is the late Rao’s adopted son is not supported by any sufficient evidence.
• It was contended that the procedure of adoption is not proved in accordance with the provisions under Section 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
• Mishra also mentioned that the give and take ceremony was not proved by the man in accordance with the law, and therefore said the judgment passed by the trial court is not sustainable.

‘No infirmity or illegality’

• Representing the man, advocate Meena Shastri argued that his client had categorically pleaded that a give-and-take ceremony took place when he was five-six years of age.
• Shastri further mentioned that the adoption deed got registered in 1998, but the procedure of adoption took place much earlier, when the person was five or six years old.
• In the registered deed, the date of adoption is mentioned as March 25, 1976, and the registered deed was executed on February 19, 1998.
• The trial court had allowed the case for a declaration that the man is the adopted son of the late Rao and the matter has no infirmity or illegality requiring interference.