In a landmark judgment that clarifies the rights of adopted children, the Orissa High Court has ruled that an adopted child cannot be denied compassionate appointment benefits if the adoption was completed before the death of the government employee. The court emphasized that formal documentation or legal recognition of the adoption can follow later, but the crucial factor is the date of the adoption itself.
Court Dismisses Centre's Petition, Upholds Tribunal Order
A division bench comprising Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra delivered this significant ruling on January 6. The bench dismissed a petition filed by the Central government and the Indian Railways. The petition challenged an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in Cuttack, which had directed the authorities to reconsider a claim for compassionate appointment.
The case revolved around the family of Late K. Sadhu Patra, a former technician with the railways who died while in service on April 2, 2008. Following his death, his widow, K. Subhadra Patra, and their adopted son, K. Adamma Patra, applied for a compassionate appointment. However, the railways rejected their claim in December 2021. The rejection was based on the argument that no valid adoption existed at the time of the employee's death, as the formal adoption deed was executed only in February 2010.
Judicial Decree on Adoption Date Proves Crucial
The High Court firmly rejected the railways' stand. The judges pointed to a definitive civil court decree dated February 27, 2013, which conclusively declared K. Adamma Patra as the legally adopted son of the deceased employee and his wife. This decree had attained finality as all parties with rival claims were involved in the suit and no appeal was filed against it.
Most importantly, the bench highlighted that the civil court judgment recorded the actual date of adoption as July 4, 2003. This was nearly five years before K. Sadhu Patra's death in 2008. "The question of adoption is no longer open to dispute," the court observed, stating that the railways could not disregard a binding judicial declaration that settled the matter.
Policy Compliance Leads to Justice for Family
While acknowledging that compassionate appointment is not an inherent right and is governed by specific policies, the bench clarified that employers must abide by their own rules. The court examined the Railway Board's policy, which requires the adoption to be completed before the employee's death. The bench found that this condition was fully satisfied in the present case, given the 2003 adoption date.
"If the policy stipulation is complied with, there is no justification for denying rehabilitative appointment when the breadwinner dies in harness," the bench stated, endorsing the reasoning of the CAT. The court termed the Central government's petition as "devoid of merit."
Issuing clear directives, the High Court ordered the railways to implement the tribunal's order within two months. The bench issued a stern warning that any non-compliance would be viewed "very seriously" at the next stage of litigation, ensuring the family finally receives the relief they sought.
