Once an Adoption is Valid, Rights Flow From It: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Railways to Consider Adopted Daughter’s Job Claim

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected the Indian Railways’ plea against a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order, directing the authorities to consider the compassionate appointment of Sukhpreet Kaur, the adopted daughter of a deceased railway employee. Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta held that once an adoption is legally recognized, all associated rights, including employment benefits, cannot be denied on technicalities. The ruling establishes an important precedent, ensuring that government departments cannot arbitrarily reject claims based on procedural objections over adoption formalities.

“Adoption is Not a Mere Technicality, It Carries Full Legal Consequences”
The case arose after Sukhpreet Kaur applied for a job in the Railways on compassionate grounds, following the death of her adoptive father, Vijay Kumar, who was a serving railway employee. Her request was rejected on the grounds that her adoption was not legally valid, as the adoption deed was registered on June 2, 2017, when she was already over 20 years old.

The Railways contended that:
•    The adoption deed was executed late, raising doubts about whether the adoption was genuine.
•    Her 10th-grade school certificate did not reflect Vijay Kumar’s name as her father, suggesting that her biological parents continued to be recognized as her legal guardians.
•    Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA), adoption of a major is not permissible, and since the deed was registered after she turned 20, it could not be considered valid.
Rejecting these objections, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh, on October 25, 2023, ruled in favor of Sukhpreet Kaur and directed the Railways to consider her case for compassionate appointment within three months. The Railways challenged the order before the High Court, seeking to set it aside.

 “Once Adoption is Registered, It is Presumed Valid”
The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the Railways’ petition, upholding the CAT order and reinforcing that: "Once an adoption deed is duly registered, it carries a legal presumption of validity under Section 16 of HAMA. The burden of disproving it lies on the person challenging the adoption, not on the adopted child."

The Court clarified that the date of registration does not determine the validity of the adoption. Instead, it observed that: "The adoption took place on January 12, 2010, but was formally registered later. The timing of registration does not negate the fact that the adoption itself had already been performed. Legal formalities may be completed later, but that does not mean the adoption did not occur."

The Court also rejected the argument that the school certificate should have reflected Vijay Kumar’s name as her father, noting that educational institutions often continue to record biological parents’ names, even in cases of valid adoption.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prema Gopal v. Central Adoption Resource Authority (SLP No. 14886/2024), where it was held that a registered adoption deed “relates back” to the date of actual adoption, not the date of its formal execution. The Apex Court ruled that legal adoption remains valid even if the formal paperwork is completed years later, provided that the adoption itself had been carried out in accordance with customary and legal procedures.

Applying this principle, the High Court held that the delay in registering the adoption deed did not affect its legal validity and that Sukhpreet Kaur remained entitled to all rights flowing from adoption, including consideration for compassionate appointment.

"Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied on Mere Bureaucratic Grounds"
Criticizing the Railways for adopting a hyper-technical approach, the Court emphasized the fundamental objective of compassionate appointment—which is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government employee. The Court stated:

"The rejection of the applicant’s claim on purely procedural grounds defeats the very purpose of compassionate appointment. The policy exists to support the dependent family of a deceased employee, and bureaucratic formalities cannot override its intent."

The High Court also pointed out that if the Railways had doubts about the adoption, it should have conducted its verification before rejecting the claim outright. The authorities had sufficient time and legal means to cross-check the adoption, yet they failed to exercise due diligence before denying the appointment.

Railways Ordered to Consider Appointment Within Three Months
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ultimately dismissed the Railways' writ petition and upheld the CAT order, directing the authorities to process Sukhpreet Kaur’s claim within three months. The judgment ensures that:

•    Adopted children cannot be denied their rights on procedural loopholes.
•    Government departments must respect validly registered adoption deeds.
•    Compassionate appointment policies must be implemented with fairness, not rigid bureaucracy.
The ruling sets a crucial precedent, affirming that once an adoption is recognized under the law, it carries full legal consequences, and all rights—whether property, employment, or inheritance—must flow accordingly.

Date of Judgment: February 13, 2025