January 17, 2023 21:58 IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that a child adopted by a widow of a government servant after her husband’s demise would not be entitled for family pension.
The top court noted that Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act (HAMA), 1956 permits a female Hindu who is not a minor or of unsound mind, to adopt a son or daughter in her own right.
It said the provision requires that a female Hindu who has a husband, shall not adopt except with the express consent of her husband. However, no such pre-condition is applicable in relation to a Hindu widow; a divorced female Hindu; or a female Hindu whose husband has, after marriage, finally renounced the world or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.
A bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna upheld the Bombay High Court order of November 30, 2015, which had held that under the Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS (Pension) Rules) the adopted child would not be entitled for the family pension.
The bench said, “The provision could not be as expansive as suggested by the counsel for the appellant (Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar). It is necessary that the scope of the benefit of family pension be restricted only to sons or daughters legally adopted by the government servant, during his/her lifetime. The definition of ‘family’ is narrowly worded under the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the specific context of the entitlement to ‘family pension’ and in relation to the government servant.” It said the word “adoption” in Rule 54(14)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the 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 the government servant after his/her death. The top court said, “This is because the object of the provision is to lend succour to a son till he attains the age of 25 years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter; similarly to the adopted son or unmarried adopted daughter when such an adoption had been made by the government servant during his/her lifetime.” It added that a case where a child is born to the 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 is 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,” the bench said.
Justice Nagarathna, who penned down the verdict on behalf of the bench, said that 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,” it said.
The top court said the present case is concerned only with the definition of ‘family’ under the CCS (Pension) Rules and this 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.
“It is trite that 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,” the bench said, while dismissing the appeal of the adoptive son Chimurkar.
According to the case, Shridar Chimurkar was serving as a superintendent in the National Sample Survey Organization at Nagpur, and retired on attaining superannuation in 1993.
He died issueless in 1994, leaving behind his wife Maya Motghare who thereafter adopted Chimurkar, the appellant herein as her son on April 6, 1996. After the death of Shridar Chimurkar, Motghare and the adopted son were living in a portion of a house owned by Prakash Motghare, the natural father of the adopted son.
Subsequently, in April 1998, Motghare married widower Chandra Prakash and began residing with him in New Delhi. The adopted son, claimed family pension payable to the family of the deceased government employee, Shridar Chimurkar, from the Centre, which was rejected by the government 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 CCS (Pension) Rules.
The matter reached court after Chimurkar moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai for direction to the government for considering him for family pension.
The tribunal by its order allowed his plea and asked the government to consider him for grant of family pension.
The Centre then challenged the order of tribunal before Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court.
