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 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 visaÌ-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 daughter, etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased ANR.
government servant. The context requires that association or connection of such persons with the deceased government servant must be direct and not remote. The said Rule 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. 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. Family pension was devised as a means to help the dependents of the deceased government servant tide over the crisis and to extend to them some succour. 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. [Para 11.1 & 12][944-H; 945-A-D; 946-B]
3. The cannon of construction described in the principle, Nocitur a Sociis, may be applied to the present case. The said principle posits that the meaning of a phrase must be construed having regard to the words immediately surrounding it. In the present case, the heirs listed under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules are the immediate dependents of the deceased government servant. Therefore, persons who were not dependant on the government servant prior to his death cannot be held to be included in the definition of ‘family’ under Rule 54(14)(b) ofthe CCS (Pension) Rules. [Para 12.1][946-C-E]
Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4 SCC 558: [2001] 2 SCR 769 - held inapplicable.
Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1988) 2 SCC 299 : [1988] 2 SCR 962; Poonamal vs. Union of India,(1985) 3 SCC 345 : [1985] 3 SCR 1042 - relied on.
Sawan Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761 : [1967] SCR 687; Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343 : [1970] 2 SCR 1 - referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.