[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mohit Goud vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
1 W.P. No. 14875/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 14875 of 2024
MOHIT GOUD
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ramkrishna Shastri - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bharhgav - Deputy Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Reserved on :- 31.03.2026
Post on :- 06.04.2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
2. By way of the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
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
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
adoptive mother and the natural father.
6. 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).
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
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.
10. 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.
11. 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
12. Per contra, the respondents defend the impugned order and
categorically deny the entitlement of the petitioner. The primary
objection raised is that the initial adoption deed dated 15.06.2020
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
(Annexure P/3) was an unregistered document and lacked legal sanctity.
The respondents argued that this lack of validity was implicitly
confirmed when the competent civil Court rejected the petitioner's
succession suit, an order subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Court
in MCA No. 143/2023.
13. The respondents strongly contend that the subsequent registered
adoption deed dated 23.10.2021 is a clear after thought, executed
almost seven months after the death of Late Dharmendra Parikh on
29.04.2021. This deed was executed between the widow, Smt. Kiran
Parikh, and the natural father, Jagdish Goud, indicating that the legal
formalities of adoption were only completed post-demise to secure
employment.
14. To substantiate this defence, the respondents heavily relied on the
judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Sen
vs. State of M.P. & Others (W.P. No. 3156/2020). It is argued that the
Court in the said case crystallized the position of law that an adopted
child, to be eligible for compassionate appointment, must be legally
adopted by the deceased employee during his lifetime, and a child
adopted later by the widow is ineligible.
15. Furthermore, the respondents submit that the rejection is strictly
in consonance with Clause 2.5 of the applicable policy dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
29.09.2014 (Annexure P/11). This Clause explicitly demands that the
adoption must have been done during the lifetime of the employee by
following due legal procedure.
16. According to the respondents, since the petitioner failed to
produce either a registered adoption deed executed prior to the
employee's death or a valid succession certificate from a competent
Court, Respondent No. 4 acted well within his administrative
jurisdiction to decline the application.
Analysis and Conclusion
17. Heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
18. This Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in
matters of compassionate appointment is limited to examining the
decision-making process, ensuring that the authorities have not acted
arbitrarily, and verifying whether the statutory rules and relevant
policies have been correctly interpreted and applied.
19. The core of the controversy stems from the rejection order dated
10.12.2021 passed by respondent No. 4, which explicitly states:
"उपरोक्त विषय एिं संदर्भ में आपके आिेदन का अिलोकन वकया गया,
तद् नुसार:- वनयमों के संदर्भ में अनुकंपा वनयुक्तक्त/ शासकीय सेिक
पवत/पत्नी की मृत्यु की क्तिवत में पवत के प्रकरण में पत्नी एिं पत्नी के
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
प्रकरण में पवत को सिभ प्रथम पात्रता है । आिेदन अनुसार आपके द्वारा
दत्तक नामा रविस्ट्र ी वदनां क 23.10.2021 का प्रस्तुत वकया है । िबवक
शासकीय सेिक धमेन्द्र पाररख की मृत्यु वदनां क 29.04.2021 को हो चुकी
थी। उक्त क्तिवत में आपका रविस्ट्र ी दत्तक नामा शासकीय सेिक की मृत्यु
के बाद की वदनां क होने से एिं उसके रविस्ट्र ी दत्तक नामें की िैधता /
माननीय सक्षम न्यायालय द्वारा उत्तरावधकारी प्रमाण पत्र के अर्ाि में
वनयमों से अनुकम्पा वनयुक्तक्त आिेदन स्वीकार / प्रदाय करने का प्रािधान
पररलवक्षत नही होता है । माननीय सक्षम न्यायालय का िैध उत्तरावधकारी
प्रमाण पत्र उपलब्ध कराने पर आपके आिेदन पर वनयमानुसार कायभिाही
की िा सकेगी। सूचनाथभ।"
20. From the pleadings and the reasoning contained in the impugned
order, two pivotal questions arise for the determination of this Court:
First, whether any registration or succession certificate is compulsorily
required for a valid adoption under the Hindu Adoptions and
Maintenance Act, 1956; and Second, whether respondent No. 4 was
legally justified in rejecting the petitioner's application on the grounds
stated therein.
21. To address the first issue, a meticulous examination of Chapter II
of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as ' the Act of 1956 ') is imperative. Section 5 of the Act of
1956 unequivocally mandates that no adoption shall be made except in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter, and any adoption made
in contravention shall be void, creating no rights in the adoptive family.
22. Section 6 of the Act of 1956 prescribes the strict requisites of a
valid adoption. It lays down four mandatory conditions:-
"6. Requisites of a valid adoption.--No adoption shall
be valid unless--
(i) the person adopting has the capacity, and also the
right, to take in adoption;
(ii) the person giving in adoption has the capacity to
do so;
(iii) the person adopted is capable of being taken in
adoption; and
(iv) the adoption is made in compliance with the other
conditions mentioned in this Chapter."
23. Expanding upon these capacities, Section 7 clarifies that any
male Hindu of sound mind, who is not a minor, has the capacity to take
a son or daughter in adoption. Crucially, if he has a living wife, the
adoption cannot proceed without her consent, unless she has entirely
renounced the world or has been declared of unsound mind by a
competent court. Section 7 of the Act of 1956 reads as under:-
"7. Capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption.--
Any male Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a
minor has the capacity to take a son or a daughter in
adoption:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
Provided that, if he has a wife living, he shall not
adopt except with the consent of his wife unless the
wife has completely and finally renounced the world or
has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.
Explanation.--If a person has more than one wife
living at the time of adoption, the consent of all the
wives is necessary unless the consent of any one of
them is unnecessary for any of the reasons specified in
the preceding proviso."
24. Regarding the child to be adopted, Section 10 stipulates that the
person must be a Hindu, must not have been already adopted, must be
unmarried, and must not have completed the age of fifteen years, unless
recognized customs or usages applicable to the parties permit otherwise.
Section 10 of the Act of 1956 reads as under:-
"10. Persons who may be adopted.--No person shall
be capable of being taken in adoption unless the
following conditions are fulfilled, namely--
(i) he or she is a Hindu;
(ii) he or she has not already been adopted;
(iii) he or she has not been married, unless there is a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
custom or usage applicable to the parties which
permits persons who are married being taken in
adoption;
(iv) he or she has not completed the age of fifteen
years, unless there is a custom or usage applicable to
the parties which permits persons who have completed
the age of fifteen years being taken in adoption."
25. Most importantly, Section 11 of the Act of 1956 lays out the
operational conditions for a valid adoption which reads as under:-
"11. Other conditions for a valid adoption.--In every
adoption, the following conditions must be complied
with:
(i) if any adoption is of a son, the adoptive father or
mother by whom the adoption is made must not have a
Hindu son, son's son or son's son's son (whether by
legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at
the time of adoption;
(ii) if the adoption is of a daughter the adoptive father
or mother by whom the adoption is made must not
have a Hindu daughter or son's daughter (whether by
legitimate blood relationship or by adoption) living at
the time of adoption;
(iii) if the adoption is by a male and the person to be
adopted is a female, the adoptive father is at least
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted;
(iv) if the adoption is by a female and the person to be
adopted is a male, the adoptive mother is at least
twenty-one years older than the person to be adopted;
(v) the same child may not be adopted simultaneously
by two or more persons;
(vi) the child to be adopted must be actually given and
taken in adoption by the parents or guardian
concerned or under their authority with intent to
transfer the child from the family of its birth [or in the
case of an abandoned child or a child whose parentage
is not known, from the place or family where it has
been brought up] to the family of its adoption:
Provided that the performance of datta homan, shall
not be essential to the validity of an adoption."
26. A cumulative and harmonious reading of Sections 5, 6, 7, 10, and
11 of the Act of 1956 leads to an inescapable legal conclusion: the
statute places absolute primacy on the capacity of the parties, the
consent of the spouse, and the actual physical act of "giving and taking"
the child with the requisite intent. Nowhere in Chapter II does the Act
of 1956 prescribe the registration of an adoption deed as a mandatory
statutory pre-condition for the validity of an adoption.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
27. The only reference to registered documents is found in Section 16
of the Act of 1956, which embodies a Rule of evidence. It states that
whenever a registered document recording an adoption is produced, the
Court "shall presume" that the adoption has been made in compliance
with the Act, unless and until it is disproved.
Section 16 creates a rebuttable presumption to ease the
evidentiary burden; it does not render an unregistered, yet factually
compliant adoption, void or illegal. Section 16 of the Act of 1956 reads
as under:-
"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating
to adoption.--Whenever any document registered
under any law for the time being in force is produced
before any court purporting to record an adoption
made 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 this Act unless and
until it is disproved."
28. This legal position has been conclusively settled by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh v. National Insurance Co., (2013)
3 SCC 409. The Apex Court held:
"14. In this context, it will be worthwhile to note the
requirement of registration of an adoption deed. Section
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
17 of the Registration Act specifically refers to the
documents of which registration is compulsory. The deed
of adoption is not one of the documents mentioned in
sub-section (1) of Section 17 which mandatorily requires
registration. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 only refers to
the mandatory requirement of registration of an
authorisation that may be given for adopting a son
executed after 1-1-1872 if such authorisation was not
conferred by a will. Dealing with the said provision
relating to authorisation, it has been held in the decision
in Vishvanath Ramji Karale v. Rahibai Ramji
Karale [AIR 1931 Bom 105] that a deed of adoption as
distinguished from authority to adopt does not require
registration."
29. Furthermore, dealing with the presumption under Section 16, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Singh v. Shakuntala, (2002) 3 SCC
634, observed:
"The matter under consideration pertains to the effect of
statutory presumption as envisaged under Section 16 of
the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. For
convenience sake, it would be worthwhile to note the
provision for its true purport. Section 16 reads as below:
"16. Presumption as to registered documents relating to
adoption.--Whenever any document registered under any
law for the time being in force is produced before any
court purporting to record an adoption made and is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
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 this Act unless and until it is disproved."
30. Applying these settled principles to the present factual matrix, the
petitioner was legally adopted by the deceased and his wife in 2010.
This physical "giving and taking" was subsequently reduced to writing
via an adoption deed executed on 15.06.2020 (Annexure P/3), during
the lifetime of the deceased employee. The deed is duly stamped,
notarized and signed by the necessary parties including two witnesses
witnessing the adoption before the notary officer and fulfils all
substantive requirements of Sections 6, 7, 10, and 11 of the Act of
1956. Consequently, the adoption was valid in the eyes of the law,
irrespective of the lack of registration at that time. The subsequent
registration on 23.10.2021 (Annexure P/6), which merely reiterated the
contents of the 2020 deed, does not erase or invalidate the original,
valid adoption that occurred prior to the employee's death. Furthermore,
this adoption has not been challenged or disproved by any competent
authority or interested party.
31. Turning to the second issue regarding the justification of the
rejection order, it is necessary to examine the legal effect of a valid
adoption. Section 12 of the Act of 1956 categorically defines the effects
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
of adoption, stating:-
"12. Effect of adoptions.--An adopted child shall be
deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or
mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the
adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in
the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be
severed and replaced by those created by the adoption
in the adoptive family:
Provided that--
(a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she
could not have married if he or she had continued in
the family of his or her birth;
(b) any property which vested in the adopted child
before the adoption shall continue to vest in such
person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to
the ownership of such property, including the
obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or
her birth;
(c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any
estate which vested in him or her before the adoption."
32. The language of Section 12 is unambiguous and profound. It
creates a legal fiction whereby the adopted child is completely
transplanted into the adoptive family, acquiring the same legal status,
rights, and privileges as a biological child "for all purposes" from the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
date of the adoption. The provisos to Section 12 merely restrict
marriage within the birth family and protect previously vested
properties, but do not dilute the absolute nature of the parent-child
relationship established by the adoption.
33. Concurrently, the State Government's Compassionate
Appointment Policy dated 29.09.2014, which governs the present case,
is explicitly clear on the inclusion of adopted children. Clause 2.5 of the
said policy provides:
"अनुकंपा ननयुक्ति के निए आनित सदस्य से तात्पयय (क्रमानुसार)
2.5 यवद मृतक शासकीय सेिक की प्राकृवतक संतान न हो तो ऐसी दत्तक
संतान विन्हें शासकीय सेिक (दम्पवत) द्वारा शासकीय सेिक के िीवित
रहते हुए िैधावनक रूप से गोद वलया हो। "
34. A plain reading of Clause 2.5 reveals that a legally adopted child
is entitled to compassionate appointment, subject to two conditions:
first, the deceased must not have a biological child, and second, the
adoption must have been done "legally" during the lifetime of the
government servant. Notably, the policy deliberately uses the phrase
"िैधावनक रूप से गोद वलया हो" (legally adopted) and does not stipulate that
the adoption must be evidenced strictly by a "registered" deed.
35. Since the requirements of a "legal adoption" are entirely
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
governed by the Act of 1956, and as analyzed above, the Act of 1956
does not mandate registration for an adoption to be legal, an adoption
fulfilling the physical and capacity requirements under Sections 6 to 11
of the Act of 1956 perfectly satisfies the condition laid down in Clause
2.5 of the 2014 Policy.
36. In light of the aforesaid extensive analysis, the action of
respondent No. 4 in rejecting the application is found to be patently
erroneous and legally unsustainable. Respondent No. 4 acted
mechanically and misdirected himself in law by insisting upon a
registered adoption deed executed prior to the death, or alternatively, a
succession certificate. It must be emphasized that there is no explicit
provision in the Act of 1956 or the 2014 Policy that specifies a
registered adoption deed or a succession certificate as a mandatory pre-
condition for a valid adoption or for claiming compassionate
appointment. By demanding these documents, respondent No. 4 is
adding strict requirements that do not exist in the law or the policy.
37. The petitioner had produced the valid, albeit unregistered, deed of
2020, which conclusively proved that the adoption occurred during the
lifetime of Late Dharmendra Parikh. The reliance placed by the
respondents on the Jitendra Kumar Sen (supra) case is misplaced, as
that case dealt with an adoption initiated after the death of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
employee, whereas in the present case, the adoption was complete and
documented in 2020, well before the employee's demise in April 2021.
38. Regarding the principles governing compassionate appointment,
it is pertinent to refer to the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in The State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari &
Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8842-8855 of 2022, decided on March 3,
2023), wherein the Court summarized the established legal position as
under:-
"7.2. On consideration of the aforesaid decisions of this
Court, the following principles emerge:
i. That a provision for compassionate appointment makes a
departure from the general provisions providing for
appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of
recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment
being made without following the said procedure, it is in the
nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be
resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives,
i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the
sudden financial crisis.
ii. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source
of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent
scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to
see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the
deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
iii. Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which
can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate
employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of
time and after the crisis is over.
iv. That compassionate appointment should be provided
immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper
to keep such a case pending for years. v. In determining as
to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant
aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the
family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by
the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its
members, together with the income from any other source."
39. Consequently, the respondents materially erred in ignoring the
mandate of Section 12 of the Act of 1956 and Clause 2.5 of the 2014
Policy. The impugned order suffers from the vice of arbitrary exercise
of administrative power based on a flawed understanding of adoption
laws.
40. The Writ Petition is, accordingly allowed. The impugned order
dated 10.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 4 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
41. The respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:9045
petitioner for compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with the
provisions of the Compassionate Appointment Policy dated 29.09.2014.
The respondents shall treat the adoption as valid and having occurred
during the lifetime of the deceased employee, and shall pass appropriate
orders granting the consequential appointment and benefits within a
period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
42. Pending applications, if any, shall also stands disposed of .
No order as to costs.
(Jai Kumar Pillai)
Judge
Rashmi*PS
