Case Number: Civil Petition No. 386 of 2023

Name of the Judges: Hon’ble Justice V. Ramasubramanian J, Justice B.V. Nagarathna J

Order dated: 17.01.2023

Facts of the case:

1. In 1993, Shridar Chimurkar retired after reaching superannuation from his position as Superintendent in the office of Respondent No. 2, Deputy Director and HO National Sample Survey Organization, Field Zonal Office, Nagpur. He passed away without having children, leaving behind his wife, Maya Motghare, who later adopted Sri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, the appellant in this case. After Shridar Chimurkar passed away, his wife Maya Motghare, the appellant, and a portion of the home owned by Prakash Motghare, the appellant’s biological father, were residing there. After getting married to widower Chandra Prakash in April 1998, Maya Motghare moved home with him in Janakpuri, New Delhi.
2. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Appellant sent a letter to the Respondents requesting family pension on behalf of the family of the recently deceased government employee Shridar Chimurkar. The letter was dated January 18, 2000. The Respondents denied the Appellant’s claim on the grounds that children adopted by a widow of a government employee after the employee’s death would not be eligible for a family pension.
3. The Appellant filed an Original Application, being O.A. No. 2166 of 2001, before the Central Administrative Tribunal in Mumbai after the Respondents rejected his request for a family pension. In this application, the Appellant requested that the Respondents’ order from the 23rd of February 2000 be quashed and set aside as being illegal and unconstitutional. By a decision dated July 19, 2002, the Central Administrative Tribunal in Mumbai approved the Appellant’s O.A. No. 2166 of 2001 application and instructed the Respondents to consider the Appellant’s request for a family pension by treating him as the adopted son of the late government worker Shridar Chimurkar.
4. By the contested judgement and order of 30 November 2015, the High Court granted the aforementioned Writ Petition and overturned the Central Administrative Tribunal of Mumbai’s dated 19 July 2002 judgement and order. Hence, the initial applicant’s appeal.

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed/held as follows:

• The court emphasised that after a widow adopts a child, the child is considered to be a part of the widow’s deceased husband’s family. The HAMA Act, 1956’s provisions, it was stated, exclusively govern the rights of a boy adopted by a Hindu widow with regard to his adoptive family.
• The bench then pointed out that Rule 54 (14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules contains the language “in reference to a government official.” The court pointed out that the phrase “in relation to” is used in statutes in order to associate or connect one object or person with another.
• The court also pointed out that cases where a child is adopted by a widow of a deceased government employee after his death must be contrasted with those where the child is born to the deceased government employee after his death.
• The Hon’ble court therefore dismissed the appeal.