Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 10916
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
Mohan Pyare, Member
Sonu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
General Manager N C Rly – Respondent
OA No. 20 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rajesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Hari Om Ojha
A registered adoption deed creates a presumption of valid adoption. Discrepancies in educational certificates regarding parentage do not invalidate the adoption or disqualify a candidate from compassionate appointment, especially when the employer had previously recognized the relationship by providing benefits.
Headnote:(A) Compassionate Appointment - Validity of Adoption - Registered adoption deed creates a legal presumption that a valid adoption has taken place. The fact that educational certificates mention natural parents instead of adoptive parents is not a valid ground to reject a claim for compassionate appointment, as school boards typically require a registered deed to change parentage records. (Para 8)
(B) Administrative Law - Reasoned Orders - An order rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment must be a reasoned and speaking order; cryptic and unreasoned orders are contrary to the principles of natural justice and established judicial precedents. (Para 11)
(C) Procedural Delay - Condonation - Delay in processing an application for compassionate appointment that is attributable to the respondents cannot be used as a ground to deny the benefit to the applicant. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the mention of a natural mother's name in educational certificates is sufficient to invalidate a registered adoption deed for the purpose of compassionate appointment.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant seeks compassionate appointment based on a registered adoption deed and the death of his adoptive father. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. respondents challenge the claim based on delay and the presence of the natural mother's name in educational certificates. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. a registered adoption deed creates a presumption of validity that overrides discrepancies in school certificates. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. delay attributable to the administration and the issuance of cryptic, unreasoned orders are legally unsustainable. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. the oa is allowed, directing the respondents to process the application on merit and pass a reasoned order. (Para 12 , 13) |
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (Administrative):
Shri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Hari Om Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
2. By means of this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs :
(i) To issue an order or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2018 passed by Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad on behalf of Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad (Annexure No. A-1 to Compilation-I).
(ii) To issue an order or direction commanding and directing the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the applicant as per qualification of the applicant and extant rules applicable on subject in the case of the applicant, within a period to be fixed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iii) To grant all the consequential relief which the applicant is entitled for.
(iv) To grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
3. The brief fact of the case as narrated by the applicant is that the father (adoptive) of the applicant was working in Loco Hospital, Kanpur, was unmarried, adopted the applicant on 28.01.2002, has taken benefit of pass and medical facility for the applicant and died on 05.09.2005. The applicant has represented from time to time for appointment on compassionate ground and respondents has rejected his representation in a letter dated 03.05.2018. The said order is unreasoned, cryptic and contrary to ratio developed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 851as well as Gordhandas Bhani reported in AIR 1952 SC 16.
4. The applicant is adopted son by adoption deed dated 28.01.2002, no means of livelihood after the death of his adoptive father and the order passed by the respondents is unreasoned and cryptic. Therefore, on the basis of above, the applicant submitted to allow the OA and direct the respondents to provide the appointment on compassionate ground immediately. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the order passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.28074 of 2024 in which it is held that if adoption deed is registered it should be presumed that valid adoption has taken place. In the certificate even the name of natural parent instead of adoptive parent is mentioned that will not create any hindrance for appointment on compassionate ground.
5. The respondents have opposed the contention raised by the applicant by filing a detailed counter affidavit and submitted that this OA has been filed along with delay condonation application without proper reason and requested to dismiss the OA preliminary on the consideration of delay.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that at the time of death of the employee, the applicant was minor. On the request of widow of the deceased employee, the name of the applicant was registered on 06.03.2018. After attaining the majority on 07.10.2013, the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 10.01.2014. The Welfare Inspector has submitted his report on 20.12.2014. A legal opinion was obtained and Chief Law Assistant opined that in contravention of RBE No.91/ 2006 the name o
