Edited By: Pathikrit Sen Gupta
Final Up to date: January 19, 2023, 02:24 IST
The Supreme Courtroom this week dominated that subsequent to the loss of life of the federal government servant a toddler adopted by his widow wouldn’t be included within the scope of the definition of ‘household’ under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Providers (Pension) Guidelines, 1972 (CCS (Pension) Guidelines), and would subsequently not be entitled to obtain household pension payable under these guidelines.
“…a case the place a toddler is born to the deceased authorities servant after his loss of life must be contrasted with a case the place a toddler is adopted by the widow of a authorities servant after his loss of life. The previous class of heirs are coated under the definition of household since such a toddler can be a posthumous baby of the deceased authorities servant. The entitlement of such a posthumous baby is wholly distinct from a toddler being adopted subsequent to the demise of the federal government servant by the surviving partner….” held a bench of Justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna.
The courtroom additional noticed that this was as a result of the deceased authorities servant would have had no relationship with the adopted baby which might have been adopted subsequent to his demise, versus a posthumous baby.
“Due to this fact, the definition of the phrase ‘household’ in relation to a authorities servant means numerous classes of individuals coming within the nomenclature of the phrase ‘household’ and all individuals who would have had a familial relationship with the federal government servant throughout his lifetime. Every other interpretation would result in abuse of the supply within the matter of grant of household pension,” the bench added.
Within the case earlier than the Supreme Courtroom, an individual named Shridar Chimurkar, who was serving as a superintendent within the workplace of Deputy Director and HO Nationwide Pattern Survey Group, Subject Zonal Workplace, Nagpur, and retired on attaining superannuation within the yr 1993, had died issueless within the yr 1994, abandoning his spouse, Maya Motghare, who thereafter adopted Sri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, the appellant earlier than the courtroom, as her son almost two years after her husband’s loss of life.
Subsequently, in April 1998, Maya Motghare married Chandra Prakash, a widower, and commenced residing with him at Janakpuri, New Delhi. Within the aforesaid background, Sri Ram claimed household pension payable to the household of the deceased authorities worker.
Sri Ram’s declare was rejected by the Union of India on the bottom that kids adopted by a widow of a authorities servant, after the loss of life of the federal government servant, wouldn’t be entitled to obtain household pension as per Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Guidelines.
Notably, CAT allowed the declare, which got here to be overturned by the Bombay Excessive Courtroom in enchantment. Aggrieved by such an order, Sri Ram approached the Supreme Courtroom.
The SC was of the view that the matter known as for an interpretation of the phrase “in relation to a authorities servant” as showing in Rule 54 (14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Guidelines.
The courtroom famous that the use of the phrase “in relation to” in statutes is with a view to deliver one individual or factor into affiliation or reference to one other individual or factor.
“The direct or oblique nature of such affiliation or connection will depend on the context. In Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Guidelines, the phrase ‘in relation to a authorities servant’ would point out that the classes of individuals listed thereunder, comparable to spouse, husband, judicially separated spouse or husband, son or single daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, and so on. are sought to be introduced into affiliation with the deceased authorities servant. The context requires that affiliation or connection of such individuals with the deceased 19 authorities servant should be direct and never distant. The mentioned Rule requires that the member of the family will need to have a detailed nexus with the deceased authorities servant, and will need to have been depending on him throughout his lifetime. Due to this fact, a son or daughter adopted by the widow of a deceased authorities servant, after the loss of life of the federal government servant, couldn’t be included within the definition of ‘household’ under Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Guidelines,” held the bench whereas dismissing the enchantment and holding that Sri Ram was actually not entitled to any pension.
Learn all of the Newest India Information right here