(Arising out of SLP (C) No.21876 of 2017)
INTRODUCTION
The case of Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India & Anr., Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21876 of 2017 addresses the issue of family pension entitlement under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (CCS (Pension) Rules). The primary legal question revolves around whether a child adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant is eligible to receive a family pension.
FACTS
Shridhar Chimurkar employed as a superintendent in the office of Respondent No. 2, Deputy Director and HO National Sample Survey Organisation, Field Zonal Office, Nagpur. After attaining superannuation in 1993, he retired, and in 1994 he passed away issueless which means he did not have any children. Two years after Shridhar Chimurkar passed away, on April 6, 1996, his wife Maya Motghare adopted the appellant, Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, as her son.
Following the passing of Shridhar Chimurkar, the appellant and Maya Motghare moved into the home of Mr. Prakash Motghare, the appellant’s biological father. Maya Motghare moved to Janakpuri, New Delhi, after marrying widower Chandra Prakash in April 1998.
The appellant requested from the defendants, in a letter dated January 18, 2000, that the pension be paid to the family of the late government employee Shridhar Chimurkar. The respondents denied this claim, citing the fact that children adopted by a widow of a government employee following the demise of the government employee’s would not be eligible to receive family pension under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (henceforth referred to as the “CCS (Pension) 3 Rules”). The appellant received the same information through a letter dated February 23, 2000.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant went to the Central Administrative Tribunal in Mumbai with an original motion (O.A. No. 2166 of 2001) to set aside and cancel the respondents’ decision, citing it as illegal and unconstitutional. Additionally, the appellant sought for a declaration to be made stating that he is entitled to the family pension because he is the adopted son of the late government employee Shridhar Chimurkar.
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai granted O.A. number 2166 of 2001 by an order dated July 19, 2002, and requested that the respondents take into account the appellant’s claim to the family pension on the basis of his adoption as Shridhar Chimurkar’s son. The Tribunal declared that in light of the 1990 and 1993 modifications to Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, the respondents’ order dated February 23, 2000, would not apply. The tribunal further mentioned the case of Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558, and declared that when a widow adopts a kid, the child is presumed to be her deceased husband’s child as well.
The Respondents in this case, were aggrieved by the Tribunal’s judgement and therefore, filed an appeal against it by filing a Writ Petition No. 2110 of 2013 to the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court of Judicature.
The High Court via an order dated 30th November, 2015 allowed the writ petition and reversed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai. Hence, this appeal is filed by the original applicant.
ISSUES RAISED
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?
APPELLANT’S CONTENTION
The learned counsel appearing on the behalf of the appellant contented that as per the provisions of the HAMA Act,1956, adoption made by a Hindu widow would be deemed to be an adoption by her deceased husband also and the same view was affirmed by this Court in Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558.
The learned counsel further cited the clause found in Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, arguing that the prohibition against post-retirement adoption or birth of children seeking a family pension had been lifted by amendments made to the Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules in 1990 and 1993. Therefore, for the purpose of awarding a family pension, children adopted at any point following the government servant’s retirement—including those adopted by the government servant’s widow after his death—should be included under the concept of “family.”
In light of the aforementioned allegations, a prayer was made to allow the current appeal by reversing the High Court’s contested decision and restoring the Tribunal’s ruling.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
The learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of Union of India contented that, the Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, has no provision regarding adoption by a widow of a government servant and the scope of the definition of ‘family’ under the aforementioned provision is not broad enough to encompass a child adopted by a government employee’s widow subsequent to his demise.
It was further contented that the provisions of HAMA Act, 1956 as referred by the learned Counsel for the Appellant merely convey that a female Hindu, including a widow, could adopt a child under the provisions of the said Act. The provisions are irrelevant with respect to the present case as it involves issues of entitlement of a child adopted by a Hindu widow after the death of the government servant, to family pension.
It was further contented that since the adoption of the appellant would not relate to the date of the retirement of service of Shridar Chimurkar, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim family pension.
On behalf of the Respondents, it was prayed with the aforementioned allegations that the present appeal be dismissed as without merit and that the High Court’s contested decision be upheld.
RATIONALE
The Supreme Court observed that the provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956, dealt only with a Hindu woman’s ability to adopt a son or daughter and the consequences of such adoption. The aforementioned provisions are of limited support as they are concerned about the rights of the adoptee such as the Appellant herein under Hindu Law and do not lend much assistance in the instant case relating to his rights and entitlements under the CCS (Pension) Rules. he rights of an adopted son under Hindu law differ significantly from his eligibility for a family pension, placing a financial strain on the public coffers. Consequently, it is required to ascertain the appellant’s rights and entitlements while taking Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules into consideration.
The Supreme Court said that “Family pension came to be conceptualised in the year 1950. When a government servant dies in harness or soon after retirement, in the traditional Indian family on the death of the only earning member, the widow or the minor children were not only rendered orphans but faced more often destitution and starvation. Traditionally speaking the widow was hardly in a position to obtain gainful employment. She suffered the most in as much as she was deprived of the companionship of the husband and also became economically orphaned. As a measure of socioeconomic justice family pension scheme was devise to help the widows tie over the crisis and till the minor children attain majority to extend them some succour.”
The Apex Court noted that the current matter may be handled using the construction canon outlined in the principle Nocitur a Sociis. According to the aforementioned concept, a phrase’s meaning must be understood in light of the words that immediately surround it. The heirs specified in this instance under CCS (Pension) Rules Rule 54(14)(b) are the departed government servant’s immediate dependents. Accordingly, under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, those who were not dependent on the government employee before his death cannot be deemed to be included in the definition of “family.”
The Supreme Court further noted that a case involving a kid adopted by a government servant’s widow after his death must be compared to one in which the child is born to the deceased government employee after his death. In the second condition, the type of heirs would be a posthumous offspring of the deceased government officer, they fall under the definition of family. The right to such a posthumous child is entirely different from that of a child adopted by the surviving spouse after the death of the government employee. It’s not hard to comprehend why the same phenomenon occurs. This is because, unlike a posthumous kid, the adopted child would not have known the deceased government employee and would have been adopted after his death.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court ruled that the decision issued in the case of Vijayalakshmamma v. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558, was not relevant to the facts of this particular case because that case dealt with a widow’s ability to adopt and her adopted child’s right to inherit. The CCS (Pension) Rules’ definition of “family” is the only issue at hand in this particular case. The aforementioned definition is narrow and specific; it cannot be interpreted to include all heirs as defined by Hindu law or other personal laws. It is well-known that while interpreting a phrase in a statute, care must be taken to accept the meaning that is attributed to that word or concept in another statute.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgement of the High court.
INFERENCE
This case underscores the specificity and narrow scope of statutory definitions, particularly in the context of entitlements like family pensions. The ruling clarifies that pension rules have distinct criteria and interpretations separate from broader personal or inheritance laws, and posthumous adoptions by widows do not automatically confer pension entitlements under these rules.
Ritika Pandey
Galgotias University