Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR - APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – RESPONDENT(S)
Civil Appeal No. 386 2023 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21876 of 2017)
Decided On : 17-01-2023
(A) Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Sections 5, 8 and 12 – Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 54 (14) (b) – Family pension – Entitlement of children adopted by widow of Government servant – There exists a vital difference between rights of an adopted son under Hindu Law and his rights to draw family pension which creates burden on public exchequer – Family pension was devised as a means to help dependants of deceased government servant tide over crisis and to extend to them some succour – Definition of term ‘family’ cannot be extended to include those persons who were not even dependants of Government servant, at the time of his death – Heirs listed under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules are immediate dependents of deceased government servant – Persons who were not dependent on government servant prior to his death cannot be held to be included in definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of CCS (Pension) Rules – It is necessary that scope of benefit of family pension be restricted only to sons or daughters legally adopted by Government servant, during his/her lifetime. (Paras 10, 12 and 12.1)
(B) Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rule 54 (14) (b)(ii) – Family pension – Entitlement of adopted children – Word “adoption” in Rule 54(14)(b)(ii) of CCS (Pension) Rules, in context of grant of family pension, must be restricted to an adoption made by a government servant during his/her lifetime and must not be extended to a case of adoption made by a surviving spouse of government servant after his/her death – A case where a child is born to deceased government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case where a child is adopted by widow of a government servant after his death – Former category of heirs are covered under definition of family since such a child would be a posthumous child of deceased government servant – Entitlement of such a posthumous child is wholly distinct from a child being adopted subsequent to demise of government servant by surviving spouse – Definition of word “family” in relation to a government servant means various categories of persons coming within nomenclature of word “family” and all persons who would have had a familial relationship with Government servant during his lifetime – Any other interpretation would lead to abuse of provision in matter of grant of family pension – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13, 14 and 16)
(C) Interpretation of Statute – Principle, Noscitur a Sociis – Meaning of a phrase must be
construed having regard to words immediately surrounding it – In construing a word in a statute, caution has to be exercised in adopting a meaning ascribed to that word or concept in another statute. (Paras 12.1 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal assails the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 30th November, 2015 wherein Writ Petition No. 2110 of 2003 filed by Respondents herein was allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 19th July, 2002, whereby the Original Application filed by the Appellant herein was allowed, has been set aside.
Point in issue is whether a child adopted by a widow of a government servant, subsequent to death of the government servant would be included within the scope of the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, and would therefore be entitled to receive family pension payable under said Rules?
Findings of Court:
Present case is concerned only with the definition of ‘family’ under the CCS (Pension) Rules. The said definition is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment concludes that the definition of "family" under Rule 54(14)(b) is restrictive and cannot be expanded to include adopted children by a widow after the death of the government servant (!) (!) . - It held that the word "adoption" in Rule 54(14)(b)(ii) must be restricted to adoptions made by the government servant during his lifetime, and not to adoptions made by the widow after his death (!) (!) . - The appeal was dismissed, affirming that posthumous/adopted children by a widow after death are not entitled to family pension under these rules (!) (!) . - The decision distinguishes posthumous children from adoptions by the widow after death, noting posthumous children are covered, but adoptions after death are not (!) (!) . - It relies on the canon of construction Nositur a Sociis to interpret the limitation of the rule to immediate dependents and those who would have had a familial relationship during the servant's lifetime (!) (!) . - It references HAMA Act provisions (Sections 8, 12) to discuss capacity of a widow to adopt and effects of adoption, but ultimately concludes these do not extend family pension rights under CCS (Pension) Rules (!) (!) (!) . - The Tribunal’s broader interpretation that adoption by a widow creates eligibility for family pension was reversed by the Supreme Court (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal assails the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 30th November, 2015 wherein Writ Petition No. 2110 of 2003 filed by the Respondents herein was allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 19th July, 2002, whereby the Original Application filed by the Appellant herein was allowed, has been set aside.
3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are as under:
3.1. That Shridar Chimurkar was serving as a Superintendent in the office of Respondent No. 2, Deputy Director and HO National Sample Survey Organization, Field Zonal Office, Nagpur, and retired on attaining superannuation in the year 1993. He died issueless in the year 1994, leaving behind his wife, namely, Maya Motghare who thereafter adopted Sri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, the Appellant herein as her son on 6th April, 1996, i.e., nearly two years after the death of Shridar Chimurkar.
3.2. After the death of Shridar Chimurkar, his wife, Maya Motghare and the Appellant were living in a portion of a house owned by Prakash Motghare, the natural father of the Appellant. Subsequently, in April, 1998, Maya Motghare married Chandra Prakash, a widower, and began residing with him at Janakpuri, New Delhi.
3.3. In the aforesaid background, the Appellant claimed family pension payable to the family of the deceased government employee, Shridar Chimurkar, from the Respondents, by addressing a letter in this regard, dated 18th January, 2000. The claim of the Appellant was rejected by the Respondents on the ground that children adopted by a widow of a government servant, after the death of the government servant, would not be entitled to receive family pension as per Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “CCS (Pension) Rules” for the sake of brevity). The Respondents’ decision was communicated to the Appellant by way of letter dated 23rd February, 2000.
3.4. Aggrieved by the Respondents’ rejection of his claim for family pension, the Appellant filed an Original Application, being O.A. No. 2166 of 2001, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, praying that the order of the Respondents dated 23rd February, 2000 be quashed and set aside, as being illegal and unconstitutional. Further, a declaration that the Appellant is the adopted son of the deceased government employee and is therefore entitled to receive family pension, was also sought.
3.5. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, by an order dated 19th July, 2002, allowed O.A. No. 2166 of 2001 filed by the Appellant and directed the Respondents to consider the Appellant’s claim for family pension by treating him as the adopted son of the deceased government employee, Shridar Chimurkar. The salient findings of the Tribunal may be culled out as under:
i. That Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, initially excluded sons or daughters born or adopted by the government servant after retirement, from the benefit of family pension. However, by way of amendments to the said Rule in the year 1990 and 1993, the bar against children born or adopted after retirement, seeking family pension, was removed.
That the order of the Respondents dated 23rd February, 2000 would not survive in view of the aforesaid amendments.
ii. That as per Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, (‘HAMA Act’, for short) the widow of a Hindu male is competent to adopt a son or a daughter without there being a direction/expression of desire to that effect, by her deceased husband. That the effect of adoption by a widow would be that the child so adopted would be deemed to be the child of her deceased husband also, vide Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558 (“Vijayalakshmamma”).
iii. That the adoption of the Appellant by Maya Motghare would be deemed to be adoption of the Appellant by her deceased
(1) Family pension – There exists a vital difference between rights of an adopted son under Hindu Law and his rights to draw family pension which creates burden on public exchequer.(2) Persons who we....
A married daughter cannot claim family pension under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, if she was married at the time of her father's death.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the right to family pension for legally adopted children, irrespective of the adoption being before or after retirement, and the discriminatory ....
Family pension claims cannot be contingent on a testamentary disposition; entitlement is based on recognized marital status and official dependency designations, without requiring succession certific....
The entitlement of a divorced daughter to a share of the family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and relevant office memorandums.
A putative second wife, whose marriage to the deceased is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, is not entitled to family pension under the Pension Rules.
Unchallenged civil court declaration of legal wedlock binds employer-participant via estoppel and res judicata for family pension, overriding non-notification under pension rules.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
