Smt Kalawati vs M/o Defence on 12 November 2026

O R D E R

The present original application has been filed by the applicants under section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

(i) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned orders 27.10.2017 & 13.11.2017 passed by the respondent NO.2 & 3 (Annexure No. A-1 & A-2 to this OA) accordingly.

(ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the family pension to the applicant No.2 as per rules along with admissible interest thereupon.

SRIVASTAVA

(iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may be given in favour of the applicant.

(iv) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Late Govind Singh was appointed as Engineering Equipment Mechanic in 509 Army Base Workshop, Agra, in 1997. Due to his ill health, he took voluntary retirement in 2007. Since he was unmarried, he had adopted applicant No. 2, who was about three years old at that time, through a registered adoption deed dated 25.11.2006, executed during his lifetime. Late Govind Singh died on 05.03.2012. After his death, applicant No. 2 claimed family pension as his legally adopted son. The respondents initially asked the applicants to submit succession and guardianship certificates, which were subsequently obtained from the competent courts. However, the respondents later refused to accept the adoption deed on the ground that a separate adoption order from a court of law was required. The applicants contend that the adoption deed executed during the lifetime of late Govind Singh is legally valid and applicant No. 2 is entitled to family pension under the applicable rules. Hence, the present Original Application has been filed.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the allegations made in the O.A. It has been stated that late Govind Singh had declared his mother as his next of kin in the official records vide declaration dated 30.11.2006. Although a document described as a 'Godnama' was executed on 25.11.2006 for adopting applicant No. 2, the said document was only an affidavit on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/-, signed by an Advocate and Notary, and was not a registered adoption deed. The deceased had also not made any declaration in the official records regarding the adoption of applicant No. 2. The succession certificate and guardianship order produced by the applicants were not considered sufficient to

SRIVASTAVA

establish a valid adoption. The respondents repeatedly informed the applicants that a duly registered adoption deed executed during the lifetime of the deceased was required for grant of family pension. However, the applicants failed to furnish the required document. Accordingly, the claim for family pension could not be processed, and the present Original Application has been opposed as devoid of merit.

4. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicants, in which the facts stated in the Original Application have been reiterated and the contents of the counter affidavit have been denied. Nothing new has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit.

5. I have heard Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

6. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant No. 2 is the legally adopted son of late Govind Singh and, therefore, is entitled to family pension under the applicable rules. It was argued that the adoption was made during the lifetime of late Govind Singh on 25.11.2006, when applicant No. 2 was about three years old. The adoption document was executed between the deceased and the biological parents of applicant No. 2 during lifetime. On the basis of the said adoption, applicant No. 2 acquired the status of the adopted son of late Govind Singh. Thus, there was no dispute between the parties on this point. There was no occasion to obtain any separate declaration or order from a court of law to establish the adoption. It was also contended that the adoption document executed during the lifetime of the deceased could not be questioned by the respondents at the stage of considering the claim for family pension, particularly when no dispute regarding its validity had been raised by the concerned family members. It was further argued that the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra,

SRIVASTAVA

while deciding Misc.Succession Case No. 34 of 2014, had accepted applicant No. 2 as the son of the deceased on the basis of the adoption document submitted before it. The applicants had also obtained an order dated 15.02.2017 from the Family Court, Agra, appointing applicant No. 1 as the guardian of applicant No. 2 in respect of family pension and the property of the deceased. Thus, the applicants had already approached the competent courts and obtained the necessary orders. In these circumstances, the respondents were not justified in ignoring the adoption document and the orders passed by the competent courts.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that under Rule 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, an adopted son is covered within the definition of family and is entitled to family pension, subject to fulfilment of the prescribed conditions. It was contended that once the adoption of applicant No. 2 had taken place during the lifetime of the deceased, he could not be denied the benefit of family pension insisting upon a separate adoption deed registered with or issued by a court of law.

8. It was further submitted that the respondents had initially asked the applicants to produce succession and guardianship certificates for processing the claim of family pension. The applicants, accordingly, approached the competent courts and submitted the required documents. However, after receiving those documents, the respondents changed their stand and insisted upon a separate adoption deed from the court of law. Such an approach was arbitrary and unjustified, particularly when the applicants had complied with the requirements communicated to them by the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that applicant No. 2 has no legal entitlement to family

SRIVASTAVA

pension, as the alleged adoption of applicant No. 2 by late Govind Singh has not been established through a legally acceptable document. It was submitted that the document dated 25.11.2006, described as a 'Godnama', is merely an affidavit executed on a stamp paper of ₹20/- and signed by an Advocate and Notary. It is neither a registered adoption deed nor an order of a competent court recognising the adoption. Therefore, the said document cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient proof of valid adoption for the purpose of grant of family pension.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that late Govind Singh had declared his mother as his next of kin in the official records vide declaration dated 30.11.2006. No subsequent declaration was made by the deceased during his lifetime regarding the adoption of applicant No. 2, nor was any necessary change made in the official records to recognise applicant No. 2 as his adopted son for pensionary purposes. It was, therefore, contended that the claim of applicant No. 2 as the legally adopted son of the deceased was not supported by the official service records.

11. It was further argued that the succession certificate dated 21.01.2015 issued by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, was limited to the collection of debts and securities of the deceased. The amount of Rs. 26,000/- mentioned in the certificate was not based on any specific direction or information supplied by the respondents. The said certificate did not determine the validity of the alleged adoption for the purpose of family pension. Similarly, the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the Family Court, Agra, appointing applicant No. 1 as guardian of applicant No. 2 in respect of family pension and property of the deceased, did not establish the validity of the adoption itself. Thus, neither the succession certificate nor the guardianship order could take the place of a legally acceptable adoption document.

SRIVASTAVA

12. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the respondents had not rejected the claim without giving an opportunity to the applicants. After receiving the application dated 26.09.2013 for grant of family pension, the respondents forwarded the case to the competent authority. However, vide letter dated 20.12.2013, the competent authority returned the case with the observation that a legal guardianship certificate issued by the competent court and an adoption deed registered with the court, executed by the deceased during his lifetime, were required. The applicants were accordingly informed vide letters dated 09.01.2014 and 21.01.2014 and were asked to furnish the requisite documents.

13. It was further submitted that even after the applicants submitted the succession certificate and the alleged 'Godnama', the case was again forwarded for consideration on 18.03.2015. However, the competent authority returned the claim vide letter dated 30.04.2015, reiterating the requirement of a duly registered adoption deed executed during the lifetime of the deceased. The applicants were again informed vide letter dated 25.05.2015. Despite subsequent reminders dated 21.11.2016 and 31.01.2017, the applicants failed to furnish the required adoption deed.

14. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that even after the applicants submitted certain additional documents, including the school certificate and date of birth certificate of applicant No. 2, the competent authority, vide letter dated 27.10.2017, again found the documents insufficient for the release of family pension. The applicants were duly informed of the said decision vide letter dated 13.11.2017. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the respondents had acted in accordance with the applicable pension rules and had repeatedly provided the applicants with an opportunity to complete the required formalities. Since the applicants failed to establish the legal status of applicant No. 2 as the adopted son of late Govind Singh through the

SRIVASTAVA

document required by the competent authority, the respondents could not release family pension in his favour. On these grounds, learned counsel submitted that the applicants had failed to establish any enforceable right to family pension and that the Original Application is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed with costs.

15. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties.

16. The case of the applicants is that applicant No. 2 is the adopted son of the deceased employee, who was unmarried and had adopted applicant No. 2 during his service period. Applicant’s case is also that an adoption deed was executed in the presence of witnesses and was duly notarized. The applicants also state that, for receiving the dues payable to the deceased employee, an application for grant of a succession certificate was filed before the competent court, which issued the succession certificate in favour of applicant No. 2, recognizing him as the adopted son of the deceased employee. Since applicant No. 2 was a minor at that time, applicant No. 1, being his grandmother, also filed an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which was allowed by the competent court.

17. The case of the respondents is that the notarized affidavit relied upon by the applicants is not sufficient to establish the factum of adoption, as it is neither a registered adoption deed nor a document recognized by a competent court of law.

18. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that the deceased employee died while in service and was unmarried. Applicant No. 2 is stated to be the son of real brother of the deceased employee. It is relevant to mention that, under the general provisions of Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, registration of an adoption deed is not mandatory. However, by an amendment introduced through Act No. 57 of 1976, the legal

SRIVASTAVA

position was changed in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the amended provisions, in the case of an adoption made on or after 01.01.1977, registration of the adoption deed is mandatory. Unless such an adoption deed is duly registered, it cannot be accepted as evidence of adoption in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

19. The issue regarding the mandatory registration of an adoption deed in the State of Uttar Pradesh came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Jagdish v. Sahayak Sanchalak Chakbandi, decided on 05.12.2024 in Writ-B No. 9423 of 1984. The Hon'ble High Court has held that the requirement of registration would apply to adoptions made on or after 01.01.1977 in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Thus, an adoption deed executed after the said date must be registered in accordance with law.

20. A similar issue was also considered by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, in Arun and Another v. State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, decided on 19.09.2025 in Special Appeal No. 316 of 2025, wherein the Hon'ble High Court reiterated the requirement of compulsory registration of an adoption deed in the State of Uttar Pradesh in respect of adoptions made on or after 01.01.1977. The relevant observations made by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Arun and Another (supra) are reproduced below: “5.Accordingly, Section 16 of the Act, 1956 was amended by Section 35 of the Amending Act of 1976 for its application in the State of U.P. in the following terms:- "Uttar Pradesh- Renumber Section 16 as sub-section (1)thereof and after sub-section (1) as so renumbered, insert the following sub- section (2) namely:-- "(2) In case of an adoption made on or after the 1st day of January, 1977 no court in Uttar Pradesh shall accept any evidence in proof of the giving and taking of the child in adoption, except a document recording an adoption, made and signed by the person giving and the person taking the child in adoption, and registered under any law for the time being in force:

SRIVASTAVA

Provided that secondary evidence of such document shall be admissible in the circumstances and the manner laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

6. To facilitate the aforesaid, by Section 32 of the Amending Act of 1976, as was proposed in the objects and reasons, Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1908') was amended by inserting clause (f) to Section 17(1) of the Act, 1908 and interalia amending sub- Section (3) of Section 17 for its application in the State of U.P. Section 17

(1) containing clause (f) and sub-Section (3) of Section 17 read as under:- "17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.--(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:--, ...................................................

(f) any other instrument required by any law for the time being in force, to be registered, (2).....

(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the Ist day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a Will [and an instrument recording adoption of a child executed after the first day of January, 1977] shall also be registered"

7. A conjoint reading of the amended Section 16(2) of the Act, 1956 as applicable in the State of U.P. and Section 17 (1)(f) and (3) of the Act, 1908 as applicable in the State of U.P. makes it clear that after 01.01.1977, any adoption in the State of U.P. can take place only by way of a registered deed and not otherwise.

8. There is no exception to the aforesaid said statutory requirements. There is nothing in the provision whether under sub-Section (1) or sub-Section (2) as applicable in the State of U.P. of Section 16 of the Act, 1956 or the Act, 1908 which could lend itself to even a remote suggestion that an unregistered deed could be relied upon to claim adoption as is being claimed herein. The judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellant was rendered in a case of compassionate appointment where a succession certificate had already been issued to the appellant-petitioner and he had also been paid post-retiral dues. As regards the other observations, with respect, we have perused the provision itself and do not find any such stipulation therein. As the alleged adoption deed is a notarized deed and not a registered deed in accordance with law, therefore, no benefit could accrue at least before a writ court in favour of the appellant. The proviso to sub- Section (2) of Section 16 of the Act, 1956 as applicable in the State of U.P. merely provides that secondary evidence of such document shall be admissible in the circumstances and the manner laid down in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Now, secondary evidence would be admissible only when the primary evidence existed but was not available for any reason. Here, it is not the case of the appellants that there was an adoption deed duly registered which is not available, therefore, there is secondary evidence. The case of the appellants in the very first instance is that there was only a notarized adoption deed, therefore, the proviso also does not help the appellants”.

SRIVASTAVA

21. In the present case, the alleged adoption deed relied upon by the applicants (Annexure A-3) was executed on 25.11.2006 at Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid statutory provisions, registration of the adoption deed was mandatory. However, the applicants have not produced any registered adoption deed to establish that the alleged adoption was made in accordance with the applicable provisions of law. Nor have they placed any material on record to show that an unregistered adoption document could be accepted as evidence of adoption in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

22. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon Annexure A-7, i.e., the succession certificate issued by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra, in Misc. (Succession) Case No. 34 of 2014, Sachin Anshul Singh v. Shri Vijay Singh, decided on 21.01.2015 and argued that since the competent court had issued the succession certificate in favour of applicant No. 2, recognising him as the son of the deceased employee, the adoption deed should also be accepted as valid. It was further submitted that the respondents' insistence upon production of a registered adoption deed was unjustified.

23. I have carefully considered the aforesaid submission and perused Annexure A-7. Although applicant No. 2 has been described as the son of the deceased employee in the succession proceedings, the said certificate shall not dispense with the mandatory requirement of registration of an adoption deed under the applicable provisions of law in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

24. In view of the settled legal position applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the adoption deed relied upon by the applicants, being merely a notarised and unregistered document, cannot be accepted as a piece of evidence to establish the adoption. Therefore,

SRIVASTAVA

no illegality, infirmity or perversity can be found in the impugned communications issued by the respondents.

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Tribunal finds no merit in the Original Application. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending Misc. Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Justice Om Prakash –VII)

Member (J)

Manish

SRIVASTAVA