Date of the Judgment: 17 January 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 46
Judges: K.M. Joseph J., B.V. Nagarathna J.
Can a child adopted by the widow of a government servant after the government servant’s death be considered part of the “family” for the purpose of receiving family pension? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the scope of family pension rules. The Court held that a child adopted by a widow after the death of her government servant husband is not eligible for family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This judgment was authored by Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice K.M. Joseph concurring.
Case Background
Shridar Chimurkar was a Superintendent in the National Sample Survey Organization who retired in 1993 and died issueless in 1994. His wife, Maya Motghare, adopted Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar (the Appellant) as her son on 6th April, 1996, nearly two years after her husband’s death. In 1998, Maya Motghare remarried and moved to New Delhi. Subsequently, the Appellant claimed family pension, which was rejected by the authorities.
The Appellant’s claim was based on the argument that as the adopted son of Maya Motghare, he should be considered the adopted son of her deceased husband, Shridar Chimurkar, and thus eligible for family pension. The authorities rejected this claim, stating that children adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant are not entitled to family pension under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993 | Shridar Chimurkar retired from service. |
| 1994 | Shridar Chimurkar died. |
| 6th April, 1996 | Maya Motghare adopted Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar (the Appellant). |
| April, 1998 | Maya Motghare remarried and moved to New Delhi. |
| 18th January, 2000 | The Appellant claimed family pension. |
| 23rd February, 2000 | The Appellant’s claim for family pension was rejected. |
| 19th July, 2002 | Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, allowed the Appellant’s claim. |
| 30th November, 2015 | High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversed the Tribunal’s order. |
| 17th January, 2023 | Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, initially ruled in favor of the Appellant, directing the authorities to consider his claim for family pension. The Tribunal relied on amendments to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, which removed the bar against children adopted after retirement from receiving family pension. The Tribunal also cited Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, stating that adoption by a widow is deemed to be adoption by her deceased husband.
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay reversed the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the Appellant could only be entitled to family pension if he had been legally adopted by the deceased government servant, which was not the case. The High Court emphasized that Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, does not cover adoption by a widow after the death of the government servant.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, defines “family” for the purpose of family pension. It includes:
- Wife or husband
- Judicially separated wife or husband
- Unmarried son (under 25 years), unmarried/widowed/divorced daughter, including legally adopted children
- Dependent parents
- Dependent disabled siblings
Section 8 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, states:
“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 Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, states:
“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.”
The Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, also defines “family pension” under Rule 3(1)(f) as:
“Family pension means `Family Pension, 1964′, admissible under Rule 54 but does not include dearness relief .”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The High Court erred in overturning the Tribunal’s decision, which correctly interpreted the law on a Hindu widow’s capacity to adopt.
- Adoption by a Hindu widow is deemed to be adoption by her deceased husband, as per the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and affirmed in Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558.
- Amendments to Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, removed the bar against children adopted after retirement, thus including children adopted by a widow after her husband’s death.
- Under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, a Hindu female can adopt in her own right, and Section 12 establishes the ties between the adopted child and the adoptive family, including the deceased husband.
- As Maya Motghare was the widow of Shridar Chimurkar at the time of adoption, the Appellant should be considered Shridar Chimurkar’s adopted son.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, does not cover adoption by a widow after the death of the government servant.
- The definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54 (14) (b) is not broad enough to include a child adopted by a widow after the government servant’s death.
- Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, only recognize a Hindu widow’s capacity to adopt but do not address the entitlement of such a child to family pension.
- The adoption of the Appellant does not relate back to the date of Shridar Chimurkar’s retirement, thus not entitling him to family pension.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of Hindu Law on Adoption |
✓ Adoption by a Hindu widow is equivalent to adoption by her deceased husband. ✓ Reliance on Vijayalakshmamma to support that adoption by a widow is deemed to be adoption by her husband also. |
✓ Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, only pertain to the capacity of a Hindu widow to adopt. ✓ These provisions do not address the issue of entitlement to family pension. |
| Interpretation of CCS (Pension) Rules | ✓ Amendments to Rule 54 (14) (b) removed the bar on children adopted after retirement, including those adopted by a widow after the government servant’s death. |
✓ Rule 54 (14) (b) does not extend to adoptions by a widow after the government servant’s death. ✓ The definition of ‘family’ is not expansive enough to include such adoptions. |
| Entitlement to Family Pension | ✓ The Appellant, as the adopted son of Maya Motghare, is also the adopted son of Shridar Chimurkar and thus entitled to family pension. | ✓ The adoption does not relate back to the date of the government servant’s retirement, thus disqualifying the Appellant from claiming family pension. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- 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 Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, and would therefore be entitled to receive family pension payable under the said Rules?
- What order?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a child adopted by a widow after the death of a government servant is included in the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules? | No | The Court held that the phrase “in relation to a government servant” in Rule 54(14)(b) requires a direct and close nexus between the family member and the deceased government servant. A child adopted by the widow after the death of the government servant does not meet this criterion. The purpose of family pension is to support dependents of the deceased government servant, and the adopted child was not a dependent during the government servant’s lifetime. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | The case pertained to the right of a widow to adopt and the right of inheritance of a child so adopted, and not the definition of ‘family’ under the CCS (Pension) Rules. |
| Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | 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. |
| Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The child adopted by a widow becomes tied with the relationship of sonship with the deceased husband of the widow. |
| Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 299 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | The phrase “in relation to” is a broad expression that brings one person or thing into association or connection with another. |
| Poonamal vs. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345 | Supreme Court of India | Followed | Family pension is meant to help dependents of the deceased government servant. |
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
| Legal Provision | Description | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| Section 8, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 | Capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption. | Establishes the capacity of a Hindu widow to adopt a child. |
| Section 12, Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 | Effects of adoption. | Defines the legal ties created by adoption, including the severance of ties with the birth family and establishment of ties with the adoptive family. |
| Rule 54(14)(b), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 | Definition of ‘family’ for the purpose of family pension. | Defines who is included in the family for the purpose of receiving family pension. |
| Rule 3(1)(f), Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 | Definition of ‘family pension’. | Defines family pension as admissible under Rule 54. |
Judgment
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 her government servant husband is not eligible for family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Adoption by a Hindu widow is deemed to be adoption by her deceased husband. | The Court acknowledged this principle under Hindu Law but clarified that this does not automatically extend to the definition of ‘family’ under pension rules. |
| Amendments to Rule 54 (14) (b) removed the bar against children adopted after retirement. | The Court stated that the amendments do not include children adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant. |
| The Appellant is the adopted son of Shridar Chimurkar and thus entitled to family pension. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the definition of ‘family’ under the pension rules is restrictive and does not include children adopted by a widow after the government servant’s death. |
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558 | The Court distinguished this case, stating that it pertains to inheritance rights under Hindu Law and not the definition of ‘family’ under pension rules. |
| Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761 | The Court followed this case to highlight 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. |
| Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343 | The Court followed this case to highlight that the child adopted by a widow becomes tied with the relationship of sonship with the deceased husband of the widow. |
| Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 299 | The Court followed this case to interpret the phrase “in relation to” as bringing one person or thing into association or connection with another. |
| Poonamal vs. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345 | The Court followed this case to highlight that family pension is meant to help dependents of the deceased government servant. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the restrictive definition of “family” under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the need to ensure that family pension benefits are provided to those who were dependent on the government servant during their lifetime. The Court emphasized that while Hindu law recognizes the adopted child as part of the deceased husband’s family, this does not automatically extend to the specific context of pension rules. The Court also considered the purpose of family pension, which is to support the immediate dependents of the deceased government servant.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Restrictive interpretation of pension rules | 40% |
| Dependence on the government servant during lifetime | 30% |
| Purpose of family pension | 20% |
| Distinction between Hindu law and pension rules | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal considerations, with a focus on the interpretation of the pension rules. The factual aspects of the case, such as the adoption by the widow, were considered in light of the legal framework.
The Court considered the argument that amendments to Rule 54(14)(b) removed the bar against children adopted after retirement. However, the Court rejected the argument that this includes children adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant. The Court emphasized that the definition of ‘family’ is narrowly worded under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, and must be restricted to an adoption made by a government servant during his/her lifetime.
The Court also distinguished the case from Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558, stating that it pertained to inheritance rights under Hindu Law, not the definition of ‘family’ under pension rules.
The Court stated, “The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote.”
The Court also noted, “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 clarified, “Therefore, 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.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- A child adopted by a widow after the death of her government servant husband is not eligible for family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
- The definition of “family” under the pension rules is restrictive and requires a direct and close nexus with the deceased government servant.
- The purpose of family pension is to support the immediate dependents of the deceased government servant who were dependent on him during his lifetime.
- While Hindu law recognizes the adopted child as part of the deceased husband’s family, this does not automatically extend to the specific context of pension rules.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the definition of “family” under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, does not include a child adopted by a widow after the death of the government servant. This clarifies the scope of family pension benefits and restricts it to those who were dependent on the government servant during their lifetime, thus affirming the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India clarifies that a child adopted by a widow after the death of her government servant husband is not eligible for family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. This decision emphasizes the restrictive nature of the definition of “family” under pension rules and the need for a direct and close nexus between the family member and the deceased government servant. The judgment ensures that family pension benefits are provided to those who were dependent on the government servant during their lifetime, aligning with the purpose of the scheme.