Adopted Son Entitled To Compassionate Appointment, Registration Not Mandatory: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a valid adoption under law does not depend on the registration of an adoption deed, setting aside a state authority’s decision that denied compassionate appointment to an adopted son on technical grounds. In doing so, the Court underscored that administrative authorities cannot impose conditions not contemplated either by statute or policy while assessing claims arising from the death of a government employee.

The case arose from a writ petition filed by Mohit Goud, who challenged an order dated December 10, 2021 rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment following the death of his adoptive father, a Superior Field Worker in the Malaria Department who died during the COVID-19 pandemic. The petitioner asserted that he had been adopted in 2010 and was fully dependent on the deceased employee.

Despite this, the authorities rejected his application on the ground that the adoption deed placed on record had been registered after the death of the employee, and that no succession certificate had been produced. The State defended this position, arguing that the absence of a registered document prior to death undermined the legal validity of the adoption and justified denial of appointment.

Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, however, found this reasoning legally untenable. The Court clarified that the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 does not mandate registration of an adoption deed as a precondition for a valid adoption. Instead, the law places emphasis on the substantive requirements of adoption, including capacity of parties, consent, and the actual act of giving and taking the child.

“The statute places absolute primacy on the capacity of the parties… and the actual physical act of ‘giving and taking’ the child,” the Court observed, adding that “nowhere… does the Act prescribe the registration of an adoption deed as a mandatory statutory pre-condition.”

The Court further noted that while a registered document may create a presumption in favour of adoption under Section 16 of the Act, the absence of registration does not render an otherwise valid adoption illegal. It relied on settled Supreme Court precedent to reiterate that registration is evidentiary, not constitutive, of adoption.

Applying this principle to the facts, the Court held that the petitioner’s adoption had taken place during the lifetime of the deceased employee and was later documented through a notarized deed in 2020. The subsequent registration of the deed in 2021, after the employee’s death, was merely a procedural step and did not negate the earlier valid adoption.

Importantly, the Court also interpreted Clause 2.5 of the State’s Compassionate Appointment Policy, which recognizes adopted children as eligible dependents provided the adoption is legally valid and occurs during the employee’s lifetime. It held that the policy does not require a registered deed, and therefore the authorities had erred in introducing an additional requirement not found in the policy.

In a sharp critique of the administrative approach, the Court said the rejection order reflected a “mechanical” exercise of power based on a flawed understanding of law. It emphasized that authorities cannot insist on documents like a registered adoption deed or succession certificate when neither the governing statute nor policy prescribes such conditions.

The judgment also reiterated the legal effect of adoption under Section 12 of the 1956 Act, which confers upon an adopted child the same status as a biological child “for all purposes,” including entitlement to benefits arising from the service of the adoptive parent.

Finding the rejection legally unsustainable, the Court quashed the impugned order and directed the State to reconsider the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment within sixty days, treating the adoption as valid and effective during the lifetime of the deceased employee.

Case Title: Mohit Goud v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: April 6, 2026

Bench: Justice Jai Kumar Pillai