Sonu Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 and consequential relief of family pension and arrears thereof. The reliefs prayed for by the applicant are as under:-

The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Sonu Kumar, claims to be the legally adopted son of Late Sant Lal, who was working as a Canteen Helper in the Rail Spring Karkhana, North Central Railway, Sinthouli, Gwalior. Late Sant Lal, being issueless, adopted the applicant through a registered Adoption Deed dated 14.05.2010, and the fact of adoption was intimated to the Chief Karkhana Manager on 15.06.2010. The date of birth of the applicant is stated to be 03.04.1998. Late Sant Lal died on 12.02.2012, when the applicant was a minor. A Family Members Certificate dated 21.09.2012 was also issued showing the applicant as the only son and legal heir of Late Sant Lal. After attaining majority, the applicant submitted a representation dated 18.09.2019 seeking payment of terminal benefits, family pension and appointment on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, an amount of Rs.89,412/- towards D.C.R.G., G.I.S. and P.L.B. was paid to him on 15.12.2020, but family pension was not granted. The applicant thereafter submitted a representation dated 13.10.2023 for grant of family pension, followed by reminders dated 26.10.2023 and 04.01.2024. Earlier, the applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No.266 of 2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.03.2024 with a direction to the competent authority to decide his representation dated 13.10.2023 by a reasoned and speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the Chief Karkhana Manager, Rail Spring Karkhana, Sinthouli, Gwalior, passed the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 rejecting the applicant’s claim for family pension. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking quashing of the order dated 02.07.2024 and a direction for grant and payment of arrears of family pension with interest.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is the legally adopted son of Late Sant Lal and the adoption is duly evidenced by the registered Adoption Deed dated 14.05.2010, which was duly brought to the notice of the respondent authorities during the lifetime of Late Sant Lal. It was submitted that the applicant was a minor on the date of death of his adoptive father on 12.02.2012 and, therefore, could not immediately pursue his claim for family pension. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant, after attaining majority, approached the respondents and continuously pursued his claim, and that the payment of Rs.89,412/- towards D.C.R.G., G.I.S. and P.L.B. itself demonstrates that the applicant’s claim as the legal heir of Late Sant Lal had been recognised. It was further submitted that the earlier O.A. No.266 of 2024 was disposed of by this Tribunal on 14.03.2024 with a specific direction to the competent authority to consider the representation dated 13.10.2023 and pass a reasoned and speaking order, but the respondents rejected the claim vide order dated 02.07.2024 on untenable grounds. According to learned counsel, the objection regarding absence of the applicant’s date of birth in the registered Adoption Deed is misconceived, as the date of birth of the applicant, i.e. 03.04.1998, was disclosed in the documents submitted by Late Sant Lal along with the adoption papers. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant’s claim is supported by the Family Members Certificate and other contemporaneous records, and that the applicable Railway Pension Rules expressly include a legally adopted son within the definition of family, subject to the prescribed conditions. It was, therefore, contended that the applicant was entitled to family pension from 13.02.2012, the date of death of Late Sant Lal, until 03.04.2023, when he attained the age of 25 years, and that the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 deserves to be quashed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the Original Application is devoid of merit, as the action taken by the respondents is in accordance with the applicable rules and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 02.07.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the document relied upon by the applicant as the registered adoption deed/Godnama dated 14.05.2010 cannot be accepted as a valid document of adoption, since the date of birth of the applicant is not mentioned therein. It was further submitted that the document subsequently relied upon by the applicant containing the date of birth is only an affidavit addressed to the competent authority and does not form part of the registered adoption deed. According to learned counsel, there was no correction in the adoption deed during the lifetime of the deceased employee by an order of the competent court, and therefore the alleged adoption deed cannot be treated as a valid basis for extending the benefit of family pension to the applicant. Learned counsel further submitted that the High School Certificate relied upon by the applicant was issued in the year 2021, whereas Late Sant Lal had died on 12.02.2012, and the date of birth mentioned therein was admittedly not incorporated in the adoption deed. It was also submitted that the succession certificate relied upon by the applicant was issued only for the purpose of withdrawal/payment of the terminal benefits and does not by itself determine entitlement to family pension. Thus, according to the respondents, the applicant has no enforceable right to claim family pension on the basis of the documents relied upon by him.

In the Counter Reply, the respondents have stated that Late Sant Lal, son of Shri Paltu Ram, who was posted as Canteen Bearer and whose P.F. No. was 03773061, died on 12.02.2012. It has been specifically stated that although the deceased employee had submitted the alleged adoption deed to the respondents along with his application dated 15.06.2010, the date of birth of the child, which is an essential element for registration of an adoption deed, was not mentioned in the adoption deed. The respondents have further contended that there is no provision for subsequently incorporating the date of birth in the adoption deed without obtaining an appropriate order from the competent court and that the applicant has not produced any such order. It is, therefore, pleaded that the alleged adoption deed is not a valid document in the eyes of law and that the deceased employee had not followed the prescribed procedure for correction thereof. The respondents have also relied upon the fact that the date of birth of the applicant, i.e. 03.04.1998, appears in the High School Certificate issued in the year 2021, much after the death of Late Sant Lal, whereas the same was not mentioned in the adoption deed. It has further been stated that, after the applicant submitted the succession certificate, the concerned authority released all terminal benefits, namely DCRG, GIS and PLB, etc., and no amount remains payable towards such terminal benefits. The respondents have consequently maintained that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed in the Original Application and that the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

In the rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for the applicant reiterated the submissions made in the Original Application and submitted that the applicant is the legally adopted son of Late Sant Lal and is entitled to the benefits of family pension. It was further submitted that the registered adoption deed dated 14.05.2010, along with the affidavit dated 14.06.2010 mentioning the applicant’s date of birth, supports the applicant’s case and that the omission of the date of birth in the adoption deed does not invalidate the adoption. Learned counsel further relied upon the finding of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi, in Suit No. 68 of 2017, wherein the applicant was held to be the adopted son of Late Sant Lal, and submitted that the respondents have wrongly denied the applicant’s claim for family pension.

Learned counsel for the respondents filed written submissions on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 was passed after due consideration of the applicant’s claim and the documents relied upon by him. It was submitted that the Adoption Deed dated 14.05.2010 does not mention the date of birth of the applicant and the subsequent affidavit dated 14.06.2010 cannot, by itself, be treated as an amendment or rectification of the registered Adoption Deed in the absence of any order of the competent court. It was further submitted that the Adoption Deed, though presented by the deceased employee before the respondents on 15.06.2010, was subsequently taken back by him pursuant to his application dated 14.09.2010 and, therefore, the service record does not establish recognition of the applicant as the adopted son for the purpose of service and pensionary benefits. Learned counsel further submitted that the High School Certificate dated 31.07.2021, relied upon by the applicant, was issued much after the death of Late Sant Lal and mentions the name of the applicant’s natural mother as Ram Devi. It was submitted that such subsequent documents, as well as the Succession Certificate, cannot by themselves establish the validity of the alleged adoption or confer any right to family pension, particularly when the legal efficacy of the Adoption Deed and the subsequent affidavit has been specifically disputed. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 and prayed for dismissal of the Original Application.

Learned counsel for the applicant, in his written submissions, submitted that the applicant is the adopted son of Late Sant Lal, who was unmarried and issueless and had adopted the applicant on 14.05.2010 through a registered Adoption Deed. It was submitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jhansi, had issued a Family Member Certificate dated 21.09.2012 showing the applicant as the only family member and legal heir of Late Sant Lal. Learned counsel further submitted that in Succession Suit No. 68 of 2012, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jhansi, had considered the registered Adoption Deed to be a valid document and directed issuance of the Succession Certificate in favour of the applicant, which was thereafter affirmed in Civil Appeal No. 62 of 2017 by the Special Judge, SC/ST, Jhansi, vide judgment dated 04.01.2019. It was further submitted that, pursuant thereto, an amount of Rs.89,412/- towards D.C.R.G., GIS and PLB was paid to the applicant on 15.12.2020, but family pension was not sanctioned. Learned counsel submitted that family pension and terminal benefits are interrelated and co-exist and, when terminal benefits had been paid on the basis of the registered Adoption Deed, denial of family pension was contrary to law. It was also submitted that the applicant had been living with his adoptive father from his early childhood and that the date of birth of the applicant was not required to be mentioned in the Adoption Deed.

Learned counsel for the applicant relied upon Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and submitted that where a document registered under any law for the time being in force purports to record an adoption 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 the said Act unless and until it is disproved. In support of the said submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Ram Jagat Vs. Smt. Kanchan Dei, AIR 1984 All 44, wherein, according to the written submissions, it was held that for a valid adoption, the signatures of the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption are necessary and, where the same are present, the registered adoption deed is presumed to be a valid document.

I have heard Mr. Chandrika Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant, and Mr. Prashant Mathur along with Mr. Eshaan Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents, at length and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents and material available on record.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings and documents available on record. The impugned order dated 02.07.2024 proceeds mainly on the ground that although Late Sant Lal had submitted an adoption document dated 14.05.2010 in favour of the applicant during his lifetime, the said document did not contain the date of birth of the adopted child and, on the basis of the legal opinion obtained by the department, the same was not treated as valid. The impugned order further records that the said document was thereafter taken back by the deceased employee on 14.09.2010. Thus, the rejection of the applicant’s claim for family pension is founded principally upon the departmental view regarding the validity of the adoption document and its subsequent withdrawal. The relevant reasoning contained in the impugned order is therefore required to be examined in the light of the subsequent adjudication by the competent Civil Court and the applicable provisions of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993.

The aforesaid reasoning of the respondents, in my considered view, cannot be sustained in the manner in which it has been applied against the applicant. It is not in dispute that the adoption document dated 14.05.2010 was executed/presented during the lifetime of Late Sant Lal. More importantly, the applicant had thereafter approached the competent Civil Court, wherein Succession Suit No. 68 of 2012 resulted in issuance of a Succession Certificate in his favour, and the judgment was subsequently carried in appeal, which also came to be dismissed on 04.01.2019. The respondents have not placed before this Tribunal any subsequent judgment or order of a competent Court by which the aforesaid proceedings or the Succession Certificate were set aside or rendered ineffective. The aforesaid judicial proceedings, therefore, constituted material circumstances which were required to be duly considered while examining the applicant’s subsequent claim for family pension.

It is also significant that the respondents, while passing the impugned order, have placed considerable reliance upon the absence of the applicant’s date of birth in the adoption document. Such omission, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive of the invalidity of adoption, particularly when the adoption document was registered and the applicant’s status was subsequently considered in judicial proceedings. Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 raises a statutory presumption in favour of an adoption evidenced by a registered document, though such presumption is rebuttable.

The subsequent conduct of the respondents also assumes significance. The record shows that an amount of Rs.89,412/-towards D.C.R.G., G.I.S. and P.L.B. was paid to the applicant on 15.12.2020 pursuant to the civil proceedings. I do not hold that such payment, by itself, creates an independent right to family pension, nevertheless, it is a relevant circumstance which cannot be completely ignored while examining the respondents' subsequent stand that the applicant’s relationship with the deceased employee was not established at all. The impugned order has failed to properly consider the cumulative effect of the registered adoption document, the civil proceedings, the appellate judgment and the subsequent payment of terminal benefits.

More importantly, Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, as reproduced in the record, specifically includes within the expression “family” a legally adopted son or daughter. The rule further prescribes the conditions relating to age and marital status for the son/daughter concerned. In the present case, the applicant was born on 03.04.1998 and Late Sant Lal died on 12.02.2012, when the applicant was a minor. Therefore, once the applicant's status as the legally adopted son is accepted on the basis of the material and judicial proceedings referred to above, his claim for family pension could not have been rejected merely by relying upon the departmental legal opinion regarding the omission of his date of birth from the adoption document. The impugned order does not disclose any independent statutory basis for disregarding the aforesaid judicial proceedings and denying the applicant the benefit available to a legally adopted son under the applicable pension rules.

Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 02.07.2024, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

A perusal of the aforesaid reasoning shows that the respondents have principally relied upon the alleged withdrawal of the Adoption Deed by the deceased employee and have treated the Succession Certificate issued in the civil proceedings as being confined only to the payment of terminal dues. However, the impugned order does not adequately examine the effect of the registered Adoption Deed dated 14.05.2010, the proceedings before the competent Civil Court, the Succession Certificate issued in favour of the applicant and the dismissal of the appeal arising therefrom, particularly while examining the applicant’s claim for family pension. The aforesaid material circumstances could not have been brushed aside merely on the basis of the departmental view regarding the subsequent withdrawal of the Adoption Deed.

In my considered view, the aforesaid approach of the respondents is not sustainable. The statutory presumption attached to a registered adoption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 is a relevant consideration, though such presumption is rebuttable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 97, has explained the scope of such presumption. Relevant paragraphs Nos. 29, 30 and 31 are quoted below:-

The said proposition has also been considered in Jai Singh v. Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC 634, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the scope of such presumption. In the instant case, the said Adoption Deed dated 14.05.2010 was submitted before the respondent department vide representation dated 15.06.2010 regarding the adoption of Sonu Kumar, son of Late Sant Lal, and was subsequently withdrawn by Late Sant Lal on 14.09.2010 after certain technical objections were raised. Moreover, other documentary evidence, such as the Marks Sheet, Aadhaar Card, PAN Card and Pass Book, also shows Sonu Kumar as the son of Late Sant Lal. Even the Civil Court, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 62/2019 (Smt. Rekha Vs. Sonu and Ors.), vide its judgment and order dated 04.09.2019, took into consideration the registered Adoption Deed in favour of the applicant with the observation that the said registered document had not been quashed or set aside by any competent Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmibai (Dead) through LRs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. (supra) has held that mere technicalities cannot defeat the purpose of adoption, particularly where the registered adoption deed has not been disproved or challenged in accordance with law. In the present case also, the respondents have not placed on record any subsequent adjudication by a competent Court whereby the registered Adoption Deed dated 14.05.2010 has been quashed or set aside.

In view of the aforesaid material and the legal position discussed hereinabove, the respondents have not demonstrated any subsequent adjudication by a competent Court invalidating the adoption relied upon by the applicant. The impugned order, therefore, could not have rejected the applicant’s claim merely on the departmental grounds recorded therein without duly considering the aforesaid material.

It is further significant that the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 recognise a legally adopted son within the expression “family”. Rule 75(19)(b)(iii), as reproduced in the record, specifically includes a “son and daughter adopted legally” within the family of a railway servant. The applicant was born on 03.04.1998 and Late Sant Lal died on 12.02.2012, when the applicant was a minor. Therefore, the applicant’s claim for family pension was required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid provision and the material relating to his adoption, rather than being rejected solely on the grounds stated in the impugned order.

In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 02.07.2024 suffers from material infirmity inasmuch as the respondents have not properly considered the relevant judicial proceedings and the applicable pension provisions while rejecting the applicant’s claim. The impugned order dated 02.07.2024 is, accordingly, quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the applicant’s claim for family pension afresh in the light of Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, having regard to his status as the legally adopted son of Late Sant Lal. The applicant is entitled to family pension for the period admissible to him under the applicable Rules. The competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order upon such reconsideration and determine the period admissible for family pension and the arrears payable to the applicant strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The admissible family pension and arrears shall thereafter be released to the applicant within the aforesaid period.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

All pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand disposed of.