Child Adopted By Widow After Death Of Govt. Employee Not Entitled To Family Pension : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, cannot be included within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 to claim family pension.The definition of the term ‘family’ cannot be extended to include those persons who were not...
The Supreme Court held that a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, cannot be included within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 to claim family pension.
The definition of the term ‘family’ cannot be extended to include those persons who were not even dependents of the government servant, at the time of his death, the bench of Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna observed.
In this case, nearly two years after the death of Shridar Chimurkar, the Government servant, his wife adopted a son (Sri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar). His claim for family pension was rejected 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. Allowing his application, Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, directed the authorities to consider his claim for family pension by treating him as the adopted son of the deceased government employee, Shridar Chimurkar. The Tribunal noted 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. Thus, according to the Tribunal, 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. The High Court reversed this order passed by the Tribunal and thus Sri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar approached the Apex Court.
The issue raised before the Apex Court bench was whether a child adopted by a widow of a government servant, subsequent to the 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 the said Rules?
The court noted that on adoption by a widow, the adopted son or daughter is deemed to be a member of the family of the deceased husband of the widow. However, the provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 determine the rights of a son adopted by a Hindu widow only vis-à-vis his adoptive family, it said.
"Rights and entitlements of an adopted son of a Hindu widow, as available in Hindu Law, as against his adoptive family, cannot axiomatically be held to be available to such adopted son, as against the government, in a case specifically governed by extant pension rules. The provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956, as discussed above, relate generally to the capacity of the female Hindu to take a son or daughter in adoption and the effects that follow such an adoption. The said provisions do not lend much assistance in the instant case which does not pertain to the rights of the adoptee such as the Appellant herein under Hindu Law, but to his rights and entitlements under the CCS (Pension) Rules. There exists a vital difference between the rights of an adopted son under Hindu Law and his rights to draw family pension, which creates a burden on the public exchequer"
The bench then noted the phrase “in relation to a government servant” as appearing in Rule 54 (14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. The court made the following observations:
family member must have a close nexus with the deceased government servant
"In Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the phrase “in relation to a government servant” would indicate that the categories of persons listed thereunder, such as wife, husband, judicially separated wife or husband, son or unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased government servant. The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote. The said Rule requires that the family member must have a close nexus with the deceased government servant, and must have been dependent on him during his lifetime. Therefore, a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be included within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules."
term ‘family’ cannot be extended to include those persons who were not even dependents of the government servan
family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour. Therefore, the definition of the term ‘family’ cannot be extended to include those persons who were not even dependents of the government servant, at the time of his death.
The court further observed that case where a child is born to the deceased government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case where a child is adopted by the widow of a government servant after his death
The former category of heirs are covered under the definition of family since such a child would be a posthumous child of the deceased government servant. The entitlement of such a posthumous child is wholly distinct from a child being adopted subsequent to the demise of the government servant by the surviving spouse. The reason for the same is not far to see. This is because the deceased government servant would have had no relationship with the adopted child which would have been adopted subsequent to his demise, as opposed to a posthumous child. Therefore, the definition of the word “family” in relation to a government servant means various categories of persons coming within the nomenclature of the word “family” and all persons who would have had a familial relationship with the government servant during his lifetime. Any other interpretation would lead to abuse of the provision in the matter of grant of family pension.
The court therefore dismissed the appeal.
Case details
Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs Union of India | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 40 | SLP (C) 21876 of 2017 | 17 Jan 2023 | Justices K M Joseph and B V Nagarathna
For Appellant(s) Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Headnotes
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ; Rule 54(14)(b) - Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ; Sections 8 and 12 - Family Pension - A son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be included within the definition of ‘family’ - Rights and entitlements of an adopted son of a Hindu widow, as available in Hindu Law, as against his adoptive family, cannot axiomatically be held to be available to such adopted son, as against the government, in a case specifically governed by extant pension rules. (Para 10-12)
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 ; Sections 8 and 12 - On adoption by a widow, the adopted son or daughter is deemed to be a member of the family of the deceased husband of the widow - Referred to Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761 and Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343 - The provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 determine the rights of a son adopted by a Hindu widow only vis-à-vis his adoptive family (Para 9-10)
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ; Rule 54(14)(b) - The phrase “in relation to a government servant” would indicate that the categories of persons listed thereunder, such as wife, husband, judicially separated wife or husband, son or unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased government servant. The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote. The said Rule requires that the family member must have a close nexus with the deceased government servant, and must have been dependent on him during his lifetime. (Para 11.1)
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 ; Rule 54(14)(b) - A case where a child is born to the deceased government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case where a child is adopted by the widow of a government servant after his death. The former category of heirs are covered under the definition of family since such a child would be a posthumous child of the deceased government servant. (Para 14)
Family Pension - Family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour - Referred to Poonamal vs. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345. (Para 12)
Words and Phrases - “In relation to” - The use of the phrase “in relation to” in statutes is with a view to bring one person or thing into association or connection with another person or thing. The direct or indirect nature of such association or connection depends on the context. (Para 11.1)
Interpretation of Statutes - 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. (Para 15)
Legal Maxims - Nocitur a Sociis - the meaning of a phrase must be construed having regard to the words immediately surrounding it. (Para 12.1)