[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Manish Chouhan vs Union Of India (2026:Rj-Jd:17339-Db) on 15 April, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:17339-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                  D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11662/2025

Manish Chouhan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Indira Colony, In
Front Of Takshila School, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.        Union Of India, Through The General Manager, North
          Western Railway, (Nwr), Jaipur - 302001.
2.        The Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
          Jodhpur - 342001.
3.        Deputy Chief Material Manager, North Western Railway,
          Jodhpur - 342001.
4.        The Chief Personnel Officer, North Western Railway,
          Jodhpur - 342001.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Suresh Charan
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Babulal Bishnoi


     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH Order 15/04/2026

1. The present writ petition has been preferred challenging the

order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in O.A. No.

375/2023 (Manish Chouhan vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby

the learned Tribunal, while dismissing the Original Application,

directed the petitioner to obtain a declaratory decree from a

competent court with regard to the adoption deed before claiming

service-related benefits.

2. The petitioner's grandfather Shri Mohan Lal, had two sons,

Shri Kailash Chandra & Shri Ganpat Lal, and two daughters

Saraswati Devi & Pushpa Devi and they lived in joint family. Shri

Kailash Chandra, having no issue, adopted the present petitioner

in the year 1998, when the petitioner was approximately ten years

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 12:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17339-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-11662/2025]

of age, in accordance with the customs prevailing in the Sikligan

Lohar Hindu community.

3. At the relevant time, Shri Kailash Chandra was employed

under the respondents as a permanent employee in the peon

cadre, serving as General Assistant in the Railway Store. Though

the adoption was effected in 1998, the adoption deed was not

registered contemporaneously. Subsequently, on 28.07.2014, the

adoption deed was formally registered before the Sub-Registrar IV,

Jodhpur, expressly recording that the adoption had taken place

about sixteen years earlier.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this

Court towards the record wherein the petitioner's marriage

documents, including the marriage card and registration

certificate, reflect Shri Kailash Chandra Chouhan as his father. The

adoptive father also submitted applications dated 08.07.2017 and

16.04.2018 requesting that the adoption deed be taken on record

in the service register. Before any further action could be taken,

Shri Kailash Chandra Chouhan expired on 03.03.2023, prior to

attaining superannuation. Thereafter, the respondents insisted

upon production of a decree from a competent court to validate

the adoption for the purpose of extending service benefits. Despite

representations, including a communication from the petitioner's

adoptive mother dated 26.06.2023, the respondents did not

accede to the request, leading to the filing of O.A. No. 375/2023,

which came to be dismissed by the learned Tribunal.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 16 of the

Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be

referred as 'the Act of 1956') which read as follows:-

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 12:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17339-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-11662/2025]

"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."

6. He further submits that no objection has been raised by any

person disputing the adoption, nor is there any legal impediment

under Section 10 of the Act of 1956 to such adoption. Reliance

has also been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of "Prema Gopal vs. Central Adoption

Resource Authority & Ors." in Special Leave to Appeal (C)

No.14886/2024 as also the judgment passed by Division Bench of

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of

"Union of India & Anr. vs. Sukhpreet Kaur & Anr." in CWP

No.28074/2024 decided on 13.02.2025.

6.1. Learned counsel thus submits that there was no requirement

of seeking any declaration with regard to the genuineness of the

adoption deed and simply based upon the adoption deed, he was

entitled for seeking benefits of compassionate appointment and

other retiral benefits post death of Kailash Chandra Chouhan as

also his wife i.e. mother of the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that certain discrepancies in the record necessitate verification

through a decree of a competent court before extending service

benefits to the petitioner.

8. Upon consideration of the case, this Court finds that there

are certain undisputed facts, as follows:-

(1) Kailash Chandra Chouhan was an employee of the respondent

No.3 and working as General Assistant in Railway Store.

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 12:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17339-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-11662/2025]

(2) Kailash Chandra Chouhari, now deceased employee, got an

adoption deed registered on 28.07.2014 with Sub Registrar IV th

Jodhpur with clear stipulation that about 16 years back, the

adoption was taken by him and his natural parents.

(3) The natural father of the petitioner is the real brother of the

employee Kailash Chandra (now deceased) and Kailash Chandra

Chouhan did not have any child.

9. Section 16 of the Act of 1956 creates a statutory

presumption in favour of a registered adoption deed, unless

rebutted. The adoption, though formalized by registration in 2014,

is clearly referable to a much earlier point in time when the

petitioner was a minor. The conduct of the deceased employee in

seeking incorporation of the said adoption in the service records in

the years 2017 and 2018 further reinforces its authenticity;

notably, the employee thereafter expired on 03.03.2023 before

attaining superannuation.

10. In the given chronology of events, this Court is of the firm

opinion that the registered document i.e. the adoption deed, was

prepared well in advance and pertains to a period when the

petitioner himself was a minor. Therefore, the adoption falls within

the ambit of Section 10 of the Act of 1956 which reads as

follows:-

"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 custom or usage applicable to the parties which permits persons who are married being taken in adoption;

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 12:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17339-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-11662/2025]

(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."

11. Section 16 of the Act of 1956 creates an absolute

presumption in favour of a registered document relating to an

adoption which also has been reproduced above. A bare perusal of

the language of Section 16 itself reveals that presumption is

rebuttable by the person who raises an objection with regard to

the registration of the document in question. In the present case,

the respondents have not at all placed on record any document or

even averment rebutting the factum of the adoption and nobody

else has also disputed the factum of the adoption pursuant to

which the adoption deed was registered. Identical issues was

considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prema Gopal

(Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-

".....Learned counsel submitted that although the adoption of the twin children in the instant case took place on 09.01.2020, the Deed of Adoption was subsequently registered on 19.09.2022. He submitted that the said Deed of Adoption would relate back to 09.01.2020, on which date the religious ceremonies were performed in the presence of relatives and friends for the formal adoption of the children under the provisions of the HAMA, 1956. In the circumstances, Regulation 67 has to be read in a manner relatable to the date of adoption. The submission of learned counsel was that although the Deed of Adoption was registered on 19.09.2022 which is subsequent to the commencement of the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021, the said Deed of Adoption relates back to the date of adoption being 09.01.2020. In the circumstances, there can be no hurdle in the consideration of the case of the petitioner herein under Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2022. Therefore, he urged that initially a direction may be issued to respondent no.3/Collector, and respondent no.2 as well, for the purpose of consideration of the case under Regulation 67 of the Regulations, 2022.

Per contra, learned ASG appearing for respondent No.1/Central Adoption Resource Authority contended that this is a case of inter-country adoption and therefore, the procedure as envisaged under the Regulations for inter country adoption must be strictly complied with. In this regard, our attention was drawn to Regulations 67 and 68 of the Regulations, 2022 as well.

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 12:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17339-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-11662/2025]

Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 submitted that if any direction is to be issued to respondent nos.2 and 3, the same would be complied with in accordance with law.

We are prima facie of the view that the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submissions. In the circumstances, we direct respondent no.3/Collector and respondent no.2 to entertain the application to be filed by the petitioner herein with all supporting documents, within a period of one week of from today.

On receipt of the said application, respondent nos.3 and 2 shall consider the case of the petitioner herein having regard to the relevant provisions of the Regulations, 2022 and in accordance with law bearing in mind the fact that the adoption took place on 09.01.2020......."

12. Similarly, the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High

Court in the case of Union of India v. Sukhpreet Kaur (Supra)

held as under:-

"6. The Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') provides the manners and methods in which an adoption is to be made of a Hindu child in a Hindu Family. Adoption can be by way of a registered-deed register deed or even without it. However, an act of giving and taking in adoption has to be performed by both the parties, namely, the biological parents and the adoptive parents. An adoption, which has already been done by way of a customary method or by any such give and take, may be reduced in writing subsequently and the adoption-deed may, thereafter, be registered.

7. Once an adoption-deed is registered, it would be presumed that a valid adoption has taken place with, of course, the right of rebuttal. The provisions regarding such presumption are provided under Section 16 of the Act. The contention of the petitioners that the adoption of respondent no. 1 not being in accordance with law on the ground that she has attained the age of majority on the day of the registration of the adoption-deed, is also erroneous. The date of birth of the applicant-respondent no. 1 (Sukhpreet Kaur) is 23.03.1997.

23.03.1997. The registered adoption-deed reflects that the adoption had taken place on 12.01.2010 but the registration could not take place. It is a matter of common knowledge that so far as the School Education Boards are concerned, they would only recognize actual parents of a child for being mentioned in the certificate and the names of father and mother would change only on the presentation of a registered adoption-deed. In June, 2013, there was no registered adoption-deed and, therefore, it is natural that in the Punjab School Education Board Certificate, the names of original parents, instead of adoptive parents, of the applicant-respondent no. 1 were mentioned. The same would, therefore, not be a reason to deprive her claim for compassionate appointment on account of demise of her adoptive father Vijay

(Uploaded on 23/04/2026 at 12:27:57 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:17339-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-11662/2025]

Kumar, who was, admittedly, an employee of the Railways and had died while in service."

13. Considering the ratio laid down in the judgments referred to

above as also considering the factum of the adoption deed being

registered, there is no reason, why the respondent should demand

the decree of competent Court when the marriage card and the

marriage registration itself indicate the name of the father as

Kailash Chandra Chouhan. Minor discrepancies in the record, if

any, cannot override the statutory presumption attached to a duly

registered adoption deed, particularly when supported by

consistent documentary evidence.

14. Thus, the present writ petition is allowed. The order dated

17.10.2024 passed in Original Application No.375/2023 is set

aside. The respondents are directed to treat the adoption deed