Case at a Glance
A woman sought compassionate appointment claiming to be the adopted daughter of a ‘Sthai Karmi’ employee who died in September 2018. Her application was rejected in 2020 on the grounds that she was not his daughter and that the policy of 7 October 2016 bars compassionate appointment for such employees, and a single judge dismissed her writ petition in 2025. A Division Bench at Jabalpur dismissed her appeal, noting that no adoption deed was produced, the service record did not name her, her mark-sheet named a different father, a succession certificate had gone to the employee’s wife, and over eight years had passed since the death.
Pitambar Upadhyay died on 9 September 2018. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment, claiming to be his adoptive daughter. By order dated 18 August 2020 the authorities rejected her application on two grounds: that she was not his daughter, and that he was not a regular employee but had only been given the benefit of ‘Sthai Karmi’ status under a policy dated 7 October 2016, which, according to the order, completely prohibits grant of compassionate appointment.
Her writ petition (W.P. No. 11806 of 2020) was dismissed on 9 September 2025. The single judge had also observed that, under Sections 10 and 11 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, a child to be adopted must, among other conditions, be unmarried and below 15 years of age. She then filed a writ appeal before the Division Bench.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a person who claims to be the adopted daughter of a deceased employee, without proof of adoption, obtain compassionate appointment years after the death?
Proof of Adoption and the Purpose of Compassionate Appointment
The Division Bench found that the appellant had not produced any adoption deed, either in the writ petition or in the appeal. The deceased’s service record did not show her as his adoptive daughter, and her mark-sheet named her father as ‘Shyam Sharan Upadhyay’, not Pitambar Upadhyay. Her application for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 had also been rejected, and a certificate had been granted to the deceased’s wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi.
The Bench further noted that more than eight years had passed since the death, so there was no immediate loss of an earning member to be met, and concluded there was ‘no need for compassionate appointment’. Finding no error in the single judge’s findings, it held the appeal to be without merit.
What the Court Actually Held
- No adoption deed was produced, so the claim to be the deceased’s adoptive daughter was not established.
- The service record and the appellant’s own mark-sheet did not support the claimed relationship, and a succession certificate had been granted to the deceased’s wife instead.
- More than eight years after the death, there was no immediate need for compassionate appointment.
- The writ appeal was dismissed, as the Bench found no error in the findings of the writ court.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Compassionate appointment claims based on adoption are increasingly common; this judgment shows that adoption must be proved by documents.
- It reiterates that compassionate appointment is meant to meet an immediate crisis and loses its basis with long delay.
- School and service records carry significant weight in deciding who is a dependant.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Families
- If a dependant is adopted, keep a registered adoption deed and ensure the employee records the adoption in the service record.
- Apply promptly; delay weakens the claim to compassionate appointment.
For Counsel
- Check the applicable policy, including whether the deceased’s category of employment is covered at all.
- Ensure documentary consistency between school records, service records and succession proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- An adoption claim without an adoption deed failed.
- Service record and mark-sheet contradicted the relationship.
- Eight years’ delay negated the urgency behind compassionate appointment.
- The writ appeal was dismissed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can an adopted child get compassionate appointment?
This judgment did not decide that question in general; it held that the appellant had not proved the adoption, since no adoption deed was produced and the records did not support her claim.
Why did the delay matter?
The Court noted that more than eight years had passed since the death, so there was no immediate loss of an earning member to be relieved by compassionate appointment.
What did the 2016 policy have to do with it?
The rejection order relied on the policy dated 7 October 2016 for ‘Sthai Karmi’ employees, which it said prohibits compassionate appointment; the Division Bench upheld the writ court’s findings.
Conclusion
The Division Bench did not need to rule on adoption law at length: the appellant had no adoption deed, her own school record named a different father, and a court had already granted the succession certificate to the employee’s wife. Added to the passage of eight years, the claim could not succeed.
Practical takeaway: A compassionate appointment claim as an adopted child stands or falls on documentary proof of the adoption and consistent records, and should be pursued without delay.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com