On January 17, The division bench of the Supreme Court led by Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna held that a child adopted by the spouse of a deceased government servant after the death of such an employee is not entitled to claim family pension. The court further ruled that such an adopted child cannot be included within the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 for claiming family pension.

"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 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 bench explained that family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to give them some succor.

The association of such dependents to the government servant must be direct and not remote. Persons who were not even dependents of the government servant at the time of his death cannot be included in the definition of 'family' under the Pension Rules, the Court said.

The Court further opined that the rights of an adopted child against an adoptive family under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, cannot axiomatically be held to be available against the government, particularly when there were extant pension rules governing the area.

"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," the Court said.

The Court added that a child born to a deceased government servant after his death would be entitled to family pension. The position of such posthumous children is different from children adopted after the death of the government servant, the Court said.
The appellant had been adopted in 1996 by a widow, about two years after her husband, a government servant, passed away. In 2000, the appellant's claim for family pension was rejected, leading the appellant to move the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai for relief. While the CAT ruled in the appellant's favour, the Bombay High Court set aside the Tribunal ruling, prompting the appellant to move the Supreme Court.

Case Title: Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India and Another
Citation: C.A. No. 000386 / 2023  

Read the complete judgment on the following Link:

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/19197/19197_2017_15_1501_41078_Judgement_17-Jan-2023.pdf

Appearance of Advocates:-

For Petitioner(s)

Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, AOR
Mr. R. Vijay Nandan Reddy, Adv.
Mr. V. Krishna Swaroop, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mrs. Madhvi Divan, A.S.G.
 Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
 Mrs. Vaishali Verma, Adv.
 Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Adv.
 Mrs. Vishakha, Adv.