Supreme Court clarifies family pension eligibility for adopted children of deceased government servants: Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India (2023) INSC 492 (17 January 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 492
Judges: K.M. Joseph J. and B.V. Nagarathna J.
Can a child adopted by the widow of a government servant after the government servant’s death be eligible for family pension? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the scope of ‘family’ under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court held that such adopted children are not eligible for family pension, as the definition of ‘family’ under the rules requires a direct relationship with the deceased government servant during their lifetime. The judgment was authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice K.M. Joseph concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, who was adopted by Maya Motghare in 1996, nearly two years after the death of her husband, Shridhar Chimurkar, a retired government employee. Maya Motghare later remarried in 1998. In 2000, Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar claimed family pension as the adopted son of the deceased government employee. The claim was rejected by the Union of India, citing Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which defines ‘family’ for pension purposes.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, ruled in favor of Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, stating that amendments to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules in 1990 and 1993 removed the bar against children adopted after retirement from receiving family pension. The Tribunal also relied on Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, holding that an adoption by a widow is deemed to be an adoption by her deceased husband. However, the Nagpur Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversed the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the relevant pension rules do not cover adoptions by a widow after the death of the government servant.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA Act): This section defines the capacity of a female Hindu to adopt a child. It states that any female Hindu who is of sound mind and not a minor can adopt a son or daughter. A widow can adopt without the consent of her deceased husband. The section reads as follows:
  
  “8. Capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption.― Any female Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption:
  Provided that, if she has a husband living, she shall not adopt a son or daughter except with the consent of her husband unless the husband has completely and finally renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be of unsound mind.”
• Section 12 of the HAMA Act: This section outlines the effects of adoption, stating that an adopted child is deemed to be the child of the adoptive parents for all purposes from the date of adoption. It also severs the ties of the child with their birth family and replaces them with those of the adoptive family. The section reads as follows:
  
  “12. Effects of adoption. ― An adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by the adoption in the adoptive family:
  Provided that― (a) the child cannot marry any person whom he or she could not have married if he or she had continued in the family of his or her birth;
  (b) any property which vested in the adopted child before the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of such property, including the obligation to maintain relatives in the family of his or her birth;
  (c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.”
• Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972: This rule defines ‘family’ for the purpose of family pension. It includes the wife or husband, unmarried sons under 25 years of age, unmarried/widowed/divorced daughters, and legally adopted sons and daughters. The rule defines ‘family’ as follows:
  
  “(b) “family” in relation to a government servant means –
  i. Wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant;
  ia. A judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery;
  ii. Unmarried son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed or divorced daughter, including such son and daughter adopted legally”;
  iii.Dependent parents;
  iv.Dependent disabled siblings (i.e., brother or sister) of a government servant.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court erred in not appreciating the law on the capacity of a Hindu widow to adopt.
• An adoption by a Hindu widow is deemed to be an adoption by her deceased husband.
• The amendments to Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules in 1990 and 1993 removed the bar on children adopted after retirement. Therefore, children adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant should also be included in the definition of ‘family’.
• Under the HAMA Act, a Hindu female can adopt in her own right, not just on behalf of her husband.
• Section 12 of the HAMA Act creates a tie between the adopted child and the deceased husband of the widow.
• Since Maya Motghare was the widow of Shridhar Chimurkar when she adopted the Appellant, the Appellant should be considered the adopted son of Shridhar Chimurkar.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules does not cover adoptions by a widow after the death of the government servant.
• The definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54 (14) (b) is not expansive enough to include a child adopted by the widow of a government servant after his death.
• Sections 8 and 12 of the HAMA Act merely recognize that a female Hindu can adopt a child, but they do not address the issue of entitlement to family pension.
• The adoption by Maya Motghare does not relate back to the date of Shridhar Chimurkar’s retirement.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. 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?
2. What order?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761* and Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343*, acknowledging that an adopted child becomes a member of the deceased husband’s family under Hindu Law. However, it clarified that this does not automatically extend to pension rules.
• The Court explained Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 299*, to interpret the phrase “in relation to,” emphasizing that the connection must be direct and not remote.
• The Court explained Poonamal vs. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345*, to highlight that family pension is intended for dependents of the deceased government servant.
• The Court distinguished Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558*, stating that it does not apply to the definition of ‘family’ under the CCS (Pension) Rules.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules is specific and restrictive. The Court focused on the intention behind family pension, which is to provide succor to the dependents of the government servant who were dependent on him during his lifetime. The Court reasoned that a child adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant does not have the same direct relationship with the deceased government servant as a child adopted during his lifetime. The Court also noted that extending the definition of ‘family’ to include children adopted after the death of the government servant could lead to abuse of the provision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that amendments to Rule 54(14)(b) broadened the definition of family to include children adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant. The Court reasoned that the amendments were intended to remove the bar on children adopted after retirement but not to include children adopted by the surviving spouse after the death of the government servant. The Court also rejected the argument that the adoption by the widow should relate back to the date of the government servant’s retirement, stating that the definition of ‘family’ under the pension rules is specific and restrictive.

The court stated: “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.”

The court further noted: “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 Court clarified: “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.”

There was no minority opinion in this case.

Key Takeaways

• A child adopted by the widow of a government servant after the government servant’s death is not eligible for family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
• The definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules requires a direct relationship with the deceased government servant during his lifetime.
• Amendments to the pension rules removing the bar on children adopted after retirement do not extend to children adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules is specific and restrictive and does not include a child adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant. This judgment reinforces the principle that family pension is intended for those who were dependent on the government servant during his lifetime.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that a child adopted by a widow after the death of a government servant is not eligible for family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This decision clarifies the scope of ‘family’ under the pension rules and emphasizes the need for a direct relationship between the family member and the deceased government servant during his lifetime.