SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR VS. UNION OF INDIA

Saumya Dwivedi,

CHHATRAPATI SHAHUJI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION

Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India is a recent case decided by the Supreme Court of India. This case is related to Hindu family laws. As per the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as HAMA), any Hindu female or male can adopt a person based on Sections 7 and 8 but subject to the provisions mentioned under Section 12 of the HAMA, 1955. In this case, the question arises for interpretation that can a person adopted from the widow of a deceased government employee after the death of a government employee be entitled to a family pension payable under the CCS (Pension) rule of 1972 or not?

Case Name

Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar vs. Union of India

Citation

(2023) 4 SCC 312

Bench

V. Ramasubramanian, B.V. Nagarathna

BACKGROUND

An appellant, Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, was adopted by his mother, Maya Motghare, on 6th April 1996, after the death of her husband. Her husband, Shridhar Chimurkar, was a government employee in Nagpur and after attaining retirement on superannuation in the year 1993. He died issue-less in 1994.

After Shridhar Chimurkar's death, his wife and the appellant lived in a portion owned by Prakash Motghare, the appellant's natural father. Maya Motghare married Chandra Prakash, a widower, and went with him to Janakpuri, New Delhi, in April 1998.

The appellant has claimed a family pension. Payable to a deceased government employee, but his letter was rejected from the office. An appellant filed a suit in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, which ordered that the aggrieved shall be considered the son of the deceased. Still, this order was reversed by the High Court, and now the appellant has filed the special writ petition under Article 136. Now the case is laid before the Supreme Court for interpretation.

ISSUE 

Whether a child adopted by the widow of a government servant after the death of the government servant would be included in the scope of the definition of 'family' under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, thereby becoming entitled to receive the family pension that is payable under the said Rules?

ARGUMENTS BY APPELLANT

The appellant, contended at the outset that the High Court erred in interfering with the findings of the Tribunal without comprehending the laws regarding a Hindu widow's capacity to adopt. It was further contended that an adoption made by a Hindu widow would also be deemed to be an adoption by her deceased husband, as per the provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956.

Reliance was also placed on the text of Rule 54 (14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, as it initially stood, and juxtaposed with the text of the said provision after amendments to the same in the years 1990 and 1993, to contend that the bar against children born or adopted after retirement, seeking family pension, was removed through the introduction of amendments.

Therefore, children adopted at any time after the retirement of the government servant, including children adopted by the widow of the government servant after his death, ought to be included in the definition of 'family' for the purpose receiving a family pension.

ARGUMENTS BY RESPONDENT 

The Respondent argued that the meaning of 'family' relating to a government servant, as established by Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, does not cover adoption by a widow of a government servant after the death of such a government servant. As a result, this provision could not grant the Appellant a family pension in this case.

It was further argued that the Counsel for the Appellant erred in relying on Sections 8 and 12 of the HAMA Act of 1956. Because the aforementioned sections simply acknowledge that a female Hindu, including a widow, may adopt a child under the provisions of the Act. However, these provisions are irrelevant in the present case, which applies not only to a question of the competence of a Hindu widow to adopt, but also to questions of entitlement of a child so adopted by a Hindu widow to family pension on the death of the government employee.

HELD 

Court held that 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 under Hindu Law, but rather to his rights and benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules. There is a significant gap between an adopted son's rights under Hindu law and his rights to be eligible for a family pension, which places a burden on the public money. Consequently, it is essential to ascertain the rights and entitlements of the Appellant in accordance with Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.

The Rule states that the family member must have close ties with the deceased government officer and have been dependent on him during his lifetime. As a result, a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased government official after the latter's death would be excluded from the definition of 'family' under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. As a result, the definition of 'family' cannot be expanded to encompass individuals who were not even dependents of the government servant at the time of his death.

CONCLUSION

The term “family” as it pertains to a government employee encompasses different groups of individuals referred to as family and all those who shared a close relationship with the government employee while they were alive. Any adoption made after the death of government employee will not be entitled with the benefit of pension because the intent of the entitling benefit such as pension is to those family relations who were dependant on the government employee. Any alternative interpretation could result in the misuse of the provision concerning the allocation of family pensions.