This judgment clarifies the legal validity of an adoption independent of registration and emphasizes eligibility for compassionate appointment based on adherence to established personal and railway policies.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.

Central Government and South Eastern Railway are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 29.01.2025 made by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Cuttack (Annexure-1), whereby OA No. 260/00256 of 2022 filed by OPs has been favoured. The Tribunal has quashed the order dated 14.12.2021, by which the claim for compassionate appointment was negative, and further it has directed to consider the claim afresh, within an outer limit of sixty days.

II. The brief facts of the case are as under:

(a) One Mr. Late K. Sadhu Patra was working as Ex-Technician (C&W) in the Railway Department. He died in harness on 02.04.2008. OP No.2 being an adopted son had staked his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The same having been turned down, vide order 14.12.2021, he along with his mother, who is OP No.1 herein, had approached the Tribunal through the subject OA, that was resisted by the Petitioners by filing the Statement of Objections.

(b) The OA was resisted essentially on the ground that there was no adoption; even otherwise, the alleged adoption deed was executed on 08.02.2010 after the death of employee; in support of this Petitioners had pressed into service Railway Board’s Policy vide RBE No.106/1988, Railway Board’s Letter No.E(NG)II/86/RC-1/1 dated 20.05.1988; the alleged adoption was not made with the consent of Railways, as required by the Policy Circulars; lastly, the decree obtained in adoption case in Civil Suit No.1 of 2012 does not bind the Railways. This contention having been rejected, the Tribunal handed the impugned order, which is put in challenge at our hands. Learned counsel appearing for the OPs resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been constructed.

III. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(1) As to what is not in dispute:

There is no dispute about the employee dying in harness on 02.04.2008. There is no dispute that OP No.1-Smt. K. Subhadra Patra is the widow of said employee. The essential dispute is whether OP No.2 is the adoptive son of the couple. This question of fact need not detain the Court for long, there being a judgment & decree obtained by OPs in C.S. No.1 of 2012, decreed on 27.02.2013 to the effect that OP No.2 is the adoptive son. It is apparent from the said judgment & decree that the rival claimants were parties to the suit, and that the judgment has attained finality, there being no further challenge thereto.

(2) As to judgment in rem vis a vis judgment in personum.

(i) The contention of learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the said judgment & decree, being in personum as against in rem, do not bind his clients, is attractively true. Section 41 of the erstwhile Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 speaks of binding nature of judgments in rem. Such judgments are rendered only in four jurisdictions, namely, Matrimonial, Insolvency, Probate & Admiralty. These judgments bind every one whether party eo nomine or not. To put in differently a kind of res judicata applies de hors Section 11 of CPC 1908, which broadly incorporates the said doctrine. Apparently, the judgment secured by OPs in the subject suit has not been rendered in one of these jurisdictions and therefore, the same being not a judgment in rem, would not bind the Petitioners, who were not parties to the same. (ii) The above being said, we hasten to clarify that the binding nature of a judgment is one thing and its evidentiary value, is another. Section 43 of the 1872 Act broadly deals with this aspect of the matter. In the Law of Evidence by Sir John Woodroffe & Syed Amir Ali