SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 1 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 17-01-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
931
SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2023)
JANUARY 17, 2023
[K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – r. 54(14)(b) –
Pension Rules – Adoption after the death of Government servant –
Right of adopted son to claim pension – The ‘S’, a retired
Superintendent, died issueless in 1994 – His wife adopted the
appellant in 1996 – Appellant claimed family pension payable to
the family of the deceased government employee –  The  claim  of
the appellant was rejected on the ground that children adopted by
widow of a government servant, after the death of the government
servant, would not be entitled to receive family pension – CAT directed
the respondents to consider the appellant’s claim – High  Court
reversed the  judgment passed by the CAT – High Court held that
the appellant herein could have been entitled to receive family
pension had he been legally adopted  by  the deceased government
servant, which was not the case in the instant matter – On appeal,
held: The heirs listed u/r. 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules are
the immediate dependents of the deceased government servant –
Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 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 –
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 context requires that
association or connection of such persons with the deceased
government servant must be direct and not remote – Therefore, a
son or daughter adopted by the widow of adeceased government
servant, after the death of the government servant, could not be
included within the definition of ‘family’ under said Rule.
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956: ss. 8 & 12 –
Effect of Adoption – On Family Pension – 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 - There exists a vital difference
   [2023] 1 S.C.R. 931
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 1 S.C.R.
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 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.
Maxim - Nocitur a Sociis - Explained and Discussed
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956
determine the rights of a son adopted by a Hindu widow only vis-
aÌ-vis his adoptive 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. The provisions of
the HAMA Act, 1956, 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. It is therefore
necessary to determine the rights and entitlements of the
Appellant having regard to Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension)
Rules. [Para 10][943-D-G]
2. 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. 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 daug

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.