MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Supreme Court Rules Child Adopted by Widow After Government Servant's Death Not Entitled to Family Pension

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a child adopted by a widow of a government servant after the government servant's death is not entitled to receive family pension. The apex court, in its judgment delivered today, stated, "The purpose of family pension is to provide support to the dependents of the deceased government servant, and the definition of 'family' cannot be expanded to include persons who were not dependents at the time of the government servant's death." The bench clarified that the term 'adoption' in the relevant pension rule should be limited to adoptions made during the government servant's lifetime and should not extend to cases of adoption posthumously. This ruling upholds the restricted interpretation of the term 'family' in relation to a government servant, ensuring the integrity of the pension scheme.

This decision by the Supreme Court carries significant implications for individuals seeking family pension as dependents of deceased government servants. The court emphasized the purpose of family pension as a means of providing financial support exclusively to those who were dependent on the government servant during their lifetime. By restricting the scope of adoption to cases where it occurred during the government servant's lifetime, the court has effectively curtailed the expansion of the definition of 'family' beyond its intended boundaries. The ruling protects the pension scheme from potential abuse and maintains its integrity.

The case before the Supreme Court centered on a child who was adopted by the widow of a deceased government servant and sought entitlement to family pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The court carefully analyzed the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, as well as the pension rules, and concluded that the adoption of a child by a widow after her husband's death did not fall within the definition of 'family' as contemplated under the pension rules.

This decision aligns with the court's commitment to interpreting laws and rules in a manner that safeguards their original purpose and intent. It emphasizes the distinction between the rights of an adopted child under personal laws and their entitlement to family pension under specific pension rules. The Supreme Court's ruling settles the question of eligibility for family pension in cases of posthumous adoption, providing clarity and consistency in the application of pension rules.

The judgment serves as a precedent, setting a clear legal precedent that will impact similar cases in the future. It reinforces the necessity of a direct association or connection with the deceased government servant at the time of their death for eligibility to family pension. This ruling, which preserves the sanctity of the pension scheme, will play a crucial role in determining entitlements and ensuring the financial well-being of the dependents of deceased government servants.

Date of Decision: June 13, 2023

SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR   vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                        

Latest Legal News