Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Jai Kumar Pillai, J
Mohit Goud – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No. 14875/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ramkrishna Shastri
For the Respondents: Sudeep Bharhgav

A valid adoption under personal law does not require registration to be effective. Consequently, an adopted child satisfies compassionate appointment criteria if the adoption process, including the physical giving and taking, occurred during the deceased employee's lifetime, regardless of when the deed was formally registered.

Headnote:(A) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 16 - Compassionate Appointment Policy - Clause 2.5 - Compassionate appointment - Adoption validity - Registration requirement - The statute does not mandate registration of an adoption deed; validity rests on compliance with legal capacities and the physical act of giving and taking the child - While Section 16 provides an evidentiary presumption for registered documents, it does not invalidate an unregistered, factually complaint adoption - An adopted child is deemed the child of the adoptive parent for all purposes post-adoption, meeting the criteria for appointment if the adoption occurred during the deceased employee's lifetime. (Paras 16-24)

(B) Administrative Law - Writ jurisdiction - Administrative authorities are bound to interpret policies in harmony with governing statutes - Rejection of a claim based on hyper-technical interpretative hurdles, such as requiring registration where the statute does not mandate it, constitutes an arbitrary exercise of power. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the demise of his adoptive father. The application was rejected by the authorities on the grounds that the adoption deed, though executed during the employee's lifetime, was unregistered, and a subsequent registration occurred post-demise, thereby failing to meet presumed policy requirements for documentary proof of the adoption.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner’s adoption fulfilled the substantive statutory requirements of capacity and the physical act of giving and taking. The policy governing compassionate appointment requires 'legal adoption' and does not prescribe the mandatory registration of the deed or a succession certificate as a condition precedent for eligibility.

Issues: The main issues were whether registration of an adoption deed is mandatorily required for the adoption to be valid under the relevant personal law and whether the authorities were justified in rejecting the compassionate appointment application for lack of such registration.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid adoption is determined by compliance with substantive statutory conditions regarding capacity and the physical act of giving/taking. Since the statute validates adoption irrespective of registration, an adoption completed in the lifetime of the deceased employee qualifies the adopted child for compassionate appointment regardless of whether the deed was registered at the time of the employee's death.

Result: Petition allowed; the impugned rejection order is quashed and set aside with directions to proceed with the appointment.

ORDER

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 4.

By way of the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of his deceased adoptive father, Late Dharmendra Parikh, has been declined. The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus quashing the said order and directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of Superior Field Worker (SFW) or any other equivalent post.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner’s father, Late Dharmendra Parikh, was working in the Malaria Department on the post of Superior Field Worker (SFW). He unfortunately succumbed to COVID-19 on 29.04.2021. The Death Certificate is annexed as Annexure P/2.

The petitioner was adopted by Late Dharmendra Parikh and his wife, Smt. Kiran Parikh, in the year 2010. An adoption deed to this effect was executed on 15.06.2020, which is annexed as Annexure P/3. Since 2010, the petitioner has been living with his adoptive parents and was completely dependent upon the deceased for his basic necessities and educational needs.

Following the death of his father, the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment before Respondent No. 4, supported by an affidavit from his adoptive mother (Annexure P/4). To avoid future legal complications, a registered adoption deed was subsequently executed on 23.10.2021 (Annexure P/6) between the adoptive mother and the natural father.

By the impugned order dated 10.12.2021 the respondent No. 4 rejected the petitioner's application. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit for succession before the Civil Judge Class-I, Mandsaur (Annexure P/7), which was rejected by the trial Court (Annexure P/8).

Aggrieved by the trial Court's order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Mandsaur (Annexure P/9). The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal in MCA No. 143/2023 (Annexure P/10), leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner contends that respondent No. 4 committed a grave legal and factual error by rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the deceased was a government employee and the petitioner, being his legally adopted son, was solely dependent upon the income of the deceased for his survival. Following the demise of his father, there is no one else in the family to claim the said appointment.

It is vehemently argued that the respondents are estopped from taking a stand contrary to the Government Circular dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure P/11). The petitioner emphasizes that the adoption deed executed on 15.06.2020 (Annexure P/3) conclusively establishes that the legal adoption took place during the lifetime of the deceased employee, squarely bringing his case within the protective ambit of the Government policy which was subsequently notarized on 15.06.2020.

The petitioner further asserts that his adoptive mother has submitted an explicit affidavit (Annexure P/4) relinquishing her claim and supporting his appointment. Despite this, respondent No. 4 failed to evaluate the application in its correct perspective and rejected the same on hyper-technical grounds without assigning any valid legal reason as to why an unregistered, yet valid, adoption deed cannot be considered under the 2014 Circular.

It is additionally submitted that the notarized adoption deed was subsequently registered dated 23.10.2021 merely out of abundant caution to avoid procedural hurdles and was a reiteration of the pre-existing adoption. This subsequent registration does not nullify the factum of the original adoption that occurred during the lifetime of the deceased government servant.

Contentions of the Respondents

Per contra, the respondents defend the impugned order and categorically deny the entitlement of the petitioner. The primary objection raised is that the initi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 4465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPURJai Kumar Pillai, JMohit Goud – AppellantVersusState Of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentW.P. No. 14875/2024

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Jai Kumar Pillai, J
Mohit Goud – Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
W.P. No. 14875/2024