Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi This the 14th day of November, 2025 Hon’ble Dr. Anand S Khati, Member (A)

1. Smt. Saraswati Devi, Aged about 58 years, W/o Late Sh. Ram Adhar, R/o House No. 100, Mosam Vihar, Mandir Wali Gali, Pasonda, Paswada, Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201005.

2. Dileep Kumar, Aged about 32 years, S/o Late Sh. Ram Adhar, R/o House No. 100, Mosam Vihar, Mandir Wali Gali, Pasonda, Paswada, Ghaziabad, U.P. – 201005.

...Applicants (By Advocate: Mr. P.S. Khare with Mr. Somnath Bhattacharya and Mr. Pradeep Tripathi)

Versus

1. Union of India Through its General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi – 110001.

2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Estate Entry Road, New Delhi-110006.

3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, DRM Office, Estate Entry Road, Northern Railway, New Delhi – 110006.

4. The Divisional Personnel Officer, DRM Office, Estate Entry Road, Northern Railway, New Delhi – 110006.

…Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Ranjan Tyagi)

O R D E R (ORAL)

The present OA has been filed by the applicants, seeking the following relief(s):-

“(i) Quash and set aside the rejection order dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure A-1)

(ii) Direct the respondents to appointment the applicants No. 2 on compassionate grounds with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Issue any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case.”

2. The learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants are seeking compassionate appointment as an adopted son of the deceased employee. He has produced various documents showing his date of birth as 01.10.1990, including:

 School Leaving Certificate issued by Sanjay Smarak Bachchan Ratnamik Vidyalaya, District Raebareli, where the date of birth of student Dileep Kumar, s/o Shri Ram Adhar, is recorded as

01.10.1990  Certificate from the National Open School, showing the same date of birth.

 Provisional Certificate issued by NIOS dated 10.09.2020 also showing date of birth 01.10.1990.

3. Counsel for the applicants has relied upon Sections 4, 15 and 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, which reads as under:-

“4. Overriding effect of Act.—

Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,—

(a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;

(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.

15. Valid adoption not to be cancelled.―No adoption which has been validly made can be cancelled by the adoptive father or mother or any other person, nor can the adopted child renounce his or her status as such and return to the family of his or her birth.

16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption.―Whenever any document registered under any law for the time being in force is roduced before any court purporting to record an adoption made and is signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, the court shall presume that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this Act unless and until it is disproved.”

4. Attention is also drawn to the registered adoption deed. The adoption took place on 22.06.2005, on which date the adopted child was below 15 years of age, and therefore within the permissible age limit under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.

5. However, the respondents, rejected the claim on the basis of the following legal opinion:

“The conditions regarding age of adoption are not fulfilled. As such, the adoption deed submitted by you regarding your son, being the adopted son of late Shri Ram Adhar, is not legally in order.”

6. They have therefore denied compassionate appointment to the adopted child and directed that onl