K. M. JOSEPH, B. V. NAGARATHNA
SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Question 1? What is the entitlement of a child adopted by a widow of a government servant to family pension under Rule 54(14)(b) CCS (Pension) Rules? Question 2? What is the scope of the term "family" under Rule 54(14)(b) in relation to a government servant for family pension purposes? Question 3? Does the adoption by a Hindu widow after the death of the government servant relate back to the deceased for the purpose of family pension, or is it restricted to adoptions made by the government servant during lifetime?
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.