SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKARversusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                          [2023] 1 S.C.R. 931                             931


              SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR                                 A
                                  v.
                    UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 386 of 2023)
                         JANUARY 17, 2023                                 B
       [K. M. JOSEPH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
       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
                                                                          C
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   D
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,
                                                                          E
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         F
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          G
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    H
                                   931
932            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B
      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
C            HELD : 1. The provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956
      determine the rights of a son adopted by a Hindu widow only vis-
      aÌ-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
D     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,
E
      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
F     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
G     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,
H     etc. are sought to be brought into association with the deceased
 SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                       933
                      ANR.

government servant. The context requires that association or           A
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
                                                                       B
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          C
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         D
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         E
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          F
       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             G
       : [1970] 2 SCR 1 - referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[2001] 2 SCR 769                held inapplicable     Para 15
[1988] 2 SCR 962                relied on             Para 11
[1985] 3 SCR 1042               relied on             Para 12          H
934             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A     [1967] SCR 687                     referred to                Para 9.1
      [1970] 2 SCR 1                     referred to                Para 9.2
             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.386 of
      2023.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2015 of the High Court
B     of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Nagpur in W.P. No.2110 of 2003.
             Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, R. Vijay Nandan Reddy, V. Krishna
      Swaroop, Advs. for the Appellant.
             Mrs. Madhvi Divan, ASG, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mrs. Vaishali
      Verma, Mrs. Vimla Sinha, Mrs. Vishakha, Advs. for the Respondents.
C            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
             NAGARATHNA J.
             1. Leave granted.
             2. This appeal assails the judgment of the Nagpur Bench of High
      Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 30th November, 2015 wherein
D
      Writ Petition No. 2110 of 2003 filed by the Respondents herein was
      allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the Central
      Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 19th July, 2002, whereby the
      Original Application filed by the Appellant herein was allowed, has been
      set aside.
E            3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are
      as under:
             3.1. That Shridar Chimurkar was serving as a Superintendent
                   in the office of Respondent No. 2, Deputy Director and
                   HO National Sample Survey Organization, Field Zonal
F                  Office, Nagpur, and retired on attaining superannuation in
                   the year 1993. He died issueless in the year 1994, leaving
                   behind his wife, namely, Maya Motghare who thereafter
                   adopted Sri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar, the Appellant herein
                   as her son on 6th April, 1996, i.e., nearly two years after the
G                  death of Shridar Chimurkar.
             3.2. After the death of Shridar Chimurkar, his wife, Maya
                   Motghare and the Appellant were living in a portion of a
                   house owned by Prakash Motghare, the natural father of
                   the Appellant. Subsequently, in April, 1998, Maya Motghare
                   married Chandra Prakash, a widower, and began residing
H                  with him at Janakpuri, New Delhi.
SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                           935
           ANR. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

   3.3.   In the aforesaid background, the Appellant claimed family       A
          pension payable to the family of the deceased government
          employee, Shridar Chimurkar, from the Respondents, by
          addressing a letter in this regard, dated 18th January, 2000.
          The claim of the Appellant was rejected by the Respondents
          on the ground that children adopted by a widow of a
          government servant, after the death of the government           B
          servant, would not be entitled to receive family pension as
          per Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
          Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “CCS (Pension)
          Rules” for the sake of brevity). The Respondents’ decision
          was communicated to the Appellant by way of letter dated        C
          23rd February, 2000.
   3.4.   Aggrieved by the Respondents’ rejection of his claim for
          family pension, the Appellant filed an Original Application,
          being O.A. No. 2166 of 2001, before the Central
          Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, praying that the order of
                                                                          D
          the Respondents dated 23rd February, 2000 be quashed and
          set aside, as being illegal and unconstitutional. Further, a
          declaration that the Appellant is the adopted son of the
          deceased government employee and is therefore entitled
          to receive family pension, was also sought.
   3.5.   The Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, by an order        E
          dated 19th July, 2002, allowed O.A. No. 2166 of 2001 filed
          by the Appellant and directed the Respondents to consider
          the Appellant’s claim for family pension by treating him as
          the adopted son of the deceased government employee,
          Shridar Chimurkar. The salient findings of the Tribunal may     F
          be culled out as under:
          i.    That Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
                initially excluded sons or daughters born or adopted
                by the government servant after retirement, from the
                benefit of family pension. However, by way of
                amendments to the said Rule in the year 1990 and          G
                1993, the bar against children born or adopted after
                retirement, seeking family pension, was removed.
                     That the order of the Respondents dated 23rd
                February, 2000 would not survive in view of the
                aforesaid amendments.                                     H
936      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            ii.    That as per Sections 8 and 12 of the Hindu Adoptions
                    and Maintenance Act, 1956, (‘HAMA Act’, for short)
                    the widow of a Hindu male is competent to adopt a
                    son or a daughter without there being a direction/
                    expression of desire to that effect, by her deceased
                    husband. That the effect of adoption by a widow
B
                    would be that the child so adopted would be deemed
                    to be the child of her deceased husband also, vide
                    Vijayalakshmamma vs. B.T. Shankar, (2001) 4
                    SCC 558 (“Vijayalakshmamma”).
             iii.   That the adoption of the Appellant by Maya Motghare
C                   would be deemed to be adoption of the Appellant by
                    her deceased husband Shridar Chimurkar also.
      3.6.   Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the
             Respondents herein challenged the same by filing Writ
             Petition No. 2110 of 2013 before the Nagpur Bench of High
D            Court of Judicature at Bombay.
      3.7.   By the impugned judgment and order dated 30th November,
             2015, the High Court allowed the said Writ Petition and
             reversed reversed judgment and order passed by the Central
             Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dated 19th July, 2002.
E            Hence this appeal by the original applicant.
             Before proceeding further, it would be useful to encapsulate
             the reasoning of the High Court for allowing the Writ Petition
             filed by the appellant herein, as under:
             i.     That the Appellant herein could have been entitled to
F                   receive family pension had he been legally adopted
                    by the deceased government servant, which was not
                    the case in the instant matter.
             ii.    That the Tribunal had erred in relying on Section 8
                    and 12 of the HAMA Act, 1956, which generally
G                   deals with, inter alia, adoption by a Hindu widow.
             iii.   That Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules
                    does not deal with adoption by a widow of a
                    government servant after the death of the government
                    servant.
H
 SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                                937
            ANR. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

       4. We have heard learned Counsel, Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, appearing         A
on behalf of the Appellant, and learned Additional Solicitor General of
India, Mrs. Madhvi Goradia Divan, appearing on behalf of the Union of
India, and perused the material on record.
      Submissions:
       5. Mrs. K. Sarada Devi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of           B
the Appellant, at the outset, contended that the High Court erred in
interfering with the findings of the Tribunal, without appreciating the law
on the capacity of a Hindu widow to adopt.
      5.1.   It was further contended that adoption made by a Hindu
             widow would be deemed to be an adoption by her deceased            C
             husband also, as per the provisions of HAMA Act, 1956,
             and in view of the said position of law, the High Court ought
             not to have interfered with the findings of the Tribunal. That
             such a view has stood affirmed by this Court in
             Vijayalakshmamma wherein a declaration was made to
                                                                                D
             the effect that adoption by a Hindu widow would be deemed
             to be adoption by her husband also.
      5.2.   Reliance was also placed on the text of Rule 54 (14) (b) of
             the CCS (Pension) Rules, as it initially stood, as contrasted
             with the text of the said provision after amendments to the
                                                                                E
             same in the years 1990 and 1993, to contend that the bar
             against children born or adopted after retirement, seeking
             family pension, was removed by way of the subsequent
             amendments. Therefore, children adopted at any time after
             retirement of the government servant, including children
             adopted by the widow of the government servant after his           F
             death ought to be included under the definition of ‘family’
             for the purpose of granting family pension.
      5.3.   That unlike the position under classical Hindu Law, a Hindu
             female under the provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 is
             rendered eligible to adopt, not only acting at the behest of       G
             her husband or on seeking his approval, but also in her own
             right. Further, Section 12 thereof provides that a child adopted
             shall cease to have any ties with the family of her/his birth
             and shall only have ties with his adoptive family. On a conjoint
             reading of the aforesaid propositions, what emerges is that
                                                                                H
938            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                  an adoption by a Hindu widow would necessarily create a
                   tie between the child so adopted and her deceased husband.
                       In that context it was submitted that the Appellant herein
                   would have ties not only with Maya Motghare, his adoptive
                   mother, but also with her deceased husband, Shridar
B                  Chimurkar, more so because, as on the date of adoption,
                   she had not re-married. That, as on the date of adoption of
                   the Appellant, Maya Motghare was the widow of Shridar
                   Chimurkar and therefore, the Appellant would be the adopted
                   son of Shridar Chimurkar also and all enumerated
                   consequences of such adoption would necessarily follow.
C
                       With the aforesaid averments, it was prayed that the
                   present appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned
                   judgment of the High Court and restoring the judgment of
                   the Tribunal.
D           6. Per contra, learned Additional Solicitor General Mrs. Madhvi
      Goradia Divan, appearing on behalf of the Union of India submitted that
      the impugned judgment is based on a faultless appreciation of the law
      and does not call for interference by this Court.
            6.1.   It was submitted that Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension)
E                  Rules, does not cover adoption by a widow of a government
                   servant, after the death of such a government servant.
                   Therefore, the said rule could not be invoked for grant of
                   family pension to the Appellant herein. That the definition
                   of ‘family’ in relation to a government servant, as provided
                   under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, is not
F                  expansive enough to take within its sweep a child adopted
                   by the widow of a government servant after his death.
            6.2.   It was contended that reliance placed by the learned
                   Counsel for the Appellant on Section 8 and 12 of HAMA
                   Act, 1956, was misplaced. That the said provisions merely
G                  recognize that a female Hindu, including a widow, could
                   adopt a child under the provisions of the said Act. However,
                   the said provisions are irrelevant to the present case, which
                   pertains not merely to a question as to the capacity of a
                   Hindu widow to adopt, but involves issues of entitlement of
                   a child so adopted by a Hindu widow, to family pension on
H
 SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                              939
            ANR. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

             the death of the government servant.                             A
      6.3.   It was next contended that the adoption of the Appellant by
             Maya Motghare, who was the widow of deceased
             government servant Shridar Chimurkar, would not relate
             back to the date of his retirement from service. Therefore,
             the appellant could not claim family pension, in his capacity    B
             as the adopted son of Shridar Chimurkar.
                  With the aforesaid averments it was prayed on behalf
              of the Respondents that the present appeal be dismissed as
              being devoid of merit, and the impugned judgment of the
              High Court be affirmed.                                         C
       Points for Consideration:
       7. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel
and learned Counsel for the respective parties, the following points would
arise for our consideration:
       i.     Whether a child adopted by a widow of a government              D
              servant, subsequent to the death of the government servant
              would be included within the scope of the definition of
              ‘family’ under Rule 54 (14) (b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules,
              and would therefore be entitled to receive family pension
              payable under the said Rules?
                                                                              E
       ii.    What order?
       Legal Scheme:
       8. Before proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to the
relevant provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 and the CCS (Pension)
Rules.
                                                                              F
       8.1. HAMA Act, 1956 seeks to codify the law relating to
              adoptions and maintenance among Hindus. Chapter II of
              the Act pertains to adoption and prescribes inter-alia, the
              manner in which an adoption is to be made, the legal
              obligations created by way of adoption and the
              consequences that are to follow an adoption.                    G
       8.2. Section 5 of the said Act provides that no adoption shall be
              made by a Hindu, except in accordance with the provisions
              of the Act; and any adoption made in contravention of the
              provisions of the Act shall be void and shall neither create
              any rights in the adoptive family, in favour of the person so   H
940      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A            adopted, nor destroy the rights of any person in the family
             of his or her birth. Further, Section 6 lists the requisites of a
             valid adoption under the said Act. Section 7 pertains to the
             capacity of a male Hindu to take in adoption, while Section
             8 deals with the capacity of a female Hindu to adopt. Section
             8 is relevant to the present case and is usefully extracted
B
             as under:
                 “8. Capacity of a female Hindu to take in adoption.¯Any
                 female Hindu who is of sound mind and is not a minor
                 has the capacity to take a son or daughter in adoption:
                 Provided that, if she has a husband living, she shall not
C                adopt a son or daughter except with the consent of her
                 husband unless the husband has completely and finally
                 renounced the world or has ceased to be a Hindu or has
                 been declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
                 of unsound mind.”
D     8.3.   Section 12 of HAMA Act, 1956, which is relevant to the
             present case, lists the effects or consequences of adoption
             by providing that an adopted child shall be deemed to be
             the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all
             purposes with effect from the date of the adoption and from
             such date, all the ties of the child in the family of his or her
E
             birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those
             created by the adoption in the adoptive family. The said
             provision is extracted as under:
                 “12. Effects of adoption. —An adopted child shall be
                 deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or
F                mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the
                 adoption and from such date all the ties of the child in
                 the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be
                 severed and replaced by those created by the adoption
                 in the adoptive family:
G                Provided that— (a) the child cannot marry any person
                 whom he or she could not have married if he or she had
                 continued in the family of his or her birth;
                 (b) any property which vested in the adopted child before
                 the adoption shall continue to vest in such person subject
H                to the obligations, if any, attaching to the ownership of
SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                            941
           ANR. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

              such property, including the obligation to maintain          A
              relatives in the family of his or her birth;
              (c) the adopted child shall not divest any person of any
              estate which vested in him or her before the adoption.”
   8.4.   However, the present case pertains not merely to a question
          as to the capacity of a Hindu widow to adopt, but involves       B
          issues of entitlement of a child adopted by a Hindu widow,
          to family pension payable to certain categories of legal heirs
          of a deceased government servant. It is necessary to refer
          to the relevant Rules of the Central Civil Services (Pension)
          Rules, 1972, as amended from time to time.
                                                                           C
             Rule 3(1)(f) of the CCS (Pension) Rules defines the
          term ‘family pension’ in the following manner:
             “Family pension means `Family Pension, 1964',
             admissible under Rule 54 but does not include dearness
             relief.”                                                      D
              Rule 54 deals, inter alia, with the amount of family
          pension payable, and the procedure to be followed for
          payment thereof. Rule 54(14)(b) which is relevant to the
          present case, defines ‘family’ for the purpose of Rule 54, in
          the following terms:
                                                                           E
             “(b) “family” in relation to a government servant means–
                i.     Wife in the case of a male Government
                       servant, or husband in the case of a female
                       Government servant;
                       ia.     A judicially separated wife or husband,     F
                               such separation not being granted on
                               the ground of adultery and the person
                               surviving was not held guilty of
                               committing adultery;
                ii.    Unmarried son who has not attained the age          G
                       of twenty-five years and unmarried or
                       widowed or divorced daughter, including such
                       son and daughter adopted legally”;
                iii.   Dependent parents;
                                                                           H
942            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                        iv.    Dependent disabled siblings (i.e., brother or
                                sister) of a government servant.”
                      With that primer, we shall proceed to consider the
                   question as to the entitlement of a child adopted by a Hindu
                   widow, to family pension payable under Rule 54 of the CCS
B                  (Pension) Rules.
            Analysis:
             9. Section 8 of HAMA Act, 1956 pertains to the capacity of a
      female Hindu to take a son or a daughter in adoption. The said provision
      permits a female Hindu who is not a minor or of unsound mind, to take a
C     son or daughter in adoption to herself, in her own right. The provision
      requires that a female Hindu who has a husband, shall not adopt except
      with the express consent of her husband. However, no such pre-condition
      is applicable in relation to a Hindu widow; a divorced female Hindu; or a
      female Hindu whose husband has, after marriage, finally renounced the
D     world or has been declared by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be of
      unsound mind.
            9.1.   Therefore, there exists an unequivocal statutory declaration
                   as to the capacity of a female Hindu, including a widow, to
                   take a son or daughter in adoption, in her own right. The
E                  question would therefore arise as to what would be the
                   adoptive family of a child who is adopted by a widow, or by
                   a married woman whose husband has completely and finally
                   renounced the world, or has been declared to be of unsound
                   mind. The text of Section 12 of the Act lends limited
                   perspective in this regard. However, this Court has clarified
F                  this aspect by declaring that, 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, vide Sawan
                   Ram vs. Kalawanti, A.I.R. 1967 SC 1761.
            9.2.   Further, in Sitabai vs. Ramchandra, A.I.R. 1970 SC 343,
G                  this Court took note of the consequences of adoption as
                   listed under Section 12 of the Act, and observed as follows
                   as to the as to the effects of adoption by a Hindu widow:
                      “5. […] It is clear on a reading of the main part of Section
                      12 and Sub-section (vi) of Section 11 that the effect of
H                     adoption under the Act is that it brings about severance
 SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                               943
            ANR. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

                 of all ties of the child given in adoption in the family of   A
                 his or her birth. The child altogether ceases to have any
                 ties with the family of his birth. Correspondingly, these
                 very ties are automatically replaced by those created by
                 the adoption in the adoptive family. The legal effect of
                 giving the child in adoption must therefore be to transfer
                                                                               B
                 the child from the family of its birth to the family of its
                 adoption.
                 The scheme of Sections 11 and 12, therefore, is that in
                 the case of adoption by a widow the adopted child
                 becomes absorbed in the adoptive family to which the
                 widow belonged. In other words the child adopted is           C
                 tied with the relationship of sonship with the deceased
                 husband of the widow.”
       10. Having acknowledged the consequences of adoption under
Hindu Law, it is necessary to highlight at this juncture that the said
provisions of the HAMA Act, 1956 determine the rights of a son adopted         D
by a Hindu widow only vis-à-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, as discussed above, relate generally to the capacity           E
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           F
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.
                                                                               G
      10.1 Rule 54 deals, inter alia, with the amount of family pension
           payable, and the procedure to be followed for payment
           thereof. Rule 54(14)(b) which is relevant to the present
           case, defines ‘family’ for the purpose of Rule 54. It is the
           case of the Appellant that a “son or daughter adopted legally”
                                                                               H
944             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A                   by a government servant is eligible to claim family pension
                    after the death of the government servant, and therefore,
                    such benefit ought to be extended in his favour also. That,
                    although he was adopted by the widow of a government
                    servant, he must be deemed to be the adopted son of the
B                   deceased government servant and therefore allowed the
                    benefit of family person.
             11. This matter calls for an interpretation of the phrase “in relation
      to a government servant” as appearing in Rule 54 (14)(b) of the CCS
      (Pension) Rules.
C
             In order to engage with this prong of the matter, i.e., effect of the
      phrase “in relation to a government servant” as appearing in Rule 54
      (14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, in determining the Appellant’s
      entitlement to family pension, it may be useful to refer to the decision of
      this Court in Doypack Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1988) 2
D     SCC 299 on the interpretation of the phrase “in relation to”:
            In the said case, this Court held as follows, while interpreting the
      phrase “in relation to” in the context of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills
      Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1986:

E           “50. The expression “in relation to” (so also “pertaining to”), is
            very broad expression which pre-supposes another subject matter.
            These are words of comprehensiveness which might have both a
            direct significance as well as an indirect significance depending
            on the context…In this connection reference may be made to 76
            Corpus Juris Secundum at pages 620 and 621 where it is stated
F           that the term “relate” is also defined as meaning to bring into
            association or connection with. It has been clearly mentioned that
            “relating to” has been held to be equivalent to or synonymous
            with as to “concerning with” and “pertaining to”. The expression
            “pertaining to” is an expression of expansion and not of
G           contraction.”
                                                               [Emphasis by me]
            11.1. The use of the phrase “in relation to” in statutes is with a
                  view to bring one person or thing into association or
H                 connection with another person or thing. The direct or
 SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                              945
            ANR. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

            indirect nature of such association or connection depends         A
            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        B
            the age of twenty-five years, adopted son or daughter, etc.
            are sought to be brought into association with the deceased
            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           C
            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      D
            54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
       12. It may also be appropriate to refer to the decision of this
Court in Poonamal vs. Union of India, (1985) 3 SCC 345, wherein
the purpose for which ‘family pension’ is granted, was highlighted by
this Court in the following words:                                            E
      “Family pension came to be conceptualised in the year 1950. When
      a Government servant die in harness or soon after retirement, in
      the traditional Indian family on the death of the only earning
      member, the widow or the minor children were not only rendered
      orphans but faced more often destitution and starvation.                F
      Traditionally speaking the widow was hardly in a position to obtain
      gainful employment. She suffered the most in as much as she
      was deprived of the companionship of the husband and also
      became economically orphaned. As a measure of socioeconomic
      justice family pension scheme was devise to help the widows tie         G
      over the crisis and till the minor children attain majority to extend
      them some succour. This appeared to be the underlying motivation
      in devising the family pension scheme. It was liberalised from
      time to time. The liberalisation was however subject to the
      condition that the Government Servant had in his life time agreed
                                                                              H
946             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A           that he shall make a contribution of an amount equal to two months’
            emoluments or Rs. 5,000 whichever is less out of the death-cum-
            retirement gratuity. Those Government servants who did not accept
            this condition were denied the benefit of family pension scheme.”
            It is evident from the passage quoted above that family pension
B     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.
C
            12.1. 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
D                 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)
                  of the CCS (Pension) Rules.
E
             13. Further, we are unable to find favour with the argument of the
      learned Counsel for the Appellant that since the bar contained in Rule
      54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules against children born or adopted
      after retirement, seeking family pension, was removed by way of the
F     subsequent amendments to the provision, children adopted at any time
      after retirement of the government servant, including children adopted
      by the widow of the government servant after his death ought to be
      included under the definition of ‘family’ for the purpose of granting family
      pension. The provision could not be as expansive as suggested by the
      learned Counsel for the Appellant. It is necessary that the scope of the
G     benefit of family pension be restricted only to sons or daughters legally
      adopted by the government servant, during his/her lifetime. The definition
      of ‘family’ is narrowly worded under the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the
      specific context of the entitlement to ‘family pension’ and in relation to
      the government servant. Therefore, the word “adoption” in Rule
H
 SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR v. UNION OF INDIA &                              947
            ANR. [B. V. NAGARATHNA J.]

54(14)(b)(ii) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, in the context of grant of family   A
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. This is because the object of the provision is to lend succour to a
son till he attains the age of twenty-five years and unmarried or widowed     B
or divorced daughter; similarly to the adopted son or unmarried adopted
daughter when such an adoption had been made by the government
servant during his/her lifetime.
       14. Further, a case where a child is born to the deceased
government servant after his death has to be contrasted with a case           C
where a child is adopted by the widow of a government servant after his
death. The former category of heirs are covered under the definition of
family since such a child would be a posthumous child of the deceased
government servant. The entitlement of such a posthumous child is wholly
distinct from a child being adopted subsequent to the demise of the
government servant by the surviving spouse. The reason for the same is        D
not far to see. This is because the deceased government servant would
have had no relationship with the adopted child which would have been
adopted subsequent to his demise, as opposed to a posthumous child.
Therefore, the definition of the word “family” in relation to a government
servant means various categories of persons coming within the                 E
nomenclature of the word “family” and all persons who would have had
a familial relationship with the government servant during his lifetime.
Any other interpretation would lead to abuse of the provision in the matter
of grant of family pension.
       15. It is also observed that the decision of this Court in             F
Vijayalakshmamma would not aid the case of the Appellant. The said
case is inapplicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that
the said case pertains to the right of a widow to adopt and the right of
inheritance of a child so adopted. The present case is concerned only
with the definition of ‘family’ under the CCS (Pension) Rules. The said       G
definition is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to
take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other
personal laws. It is trite that in construing a word in a statute, caution
has to be exercised in adopting a meaning ascribed to that word or concept
in another statute.
                                                                              H
948              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 1 S.C.R.


A             16. In light of the reasons assigned hereinabove, the present appeal
      is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. The judgment of
      the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 30th November, 2015, is
      hereby affirmed.
             Parties to bear their respective costs.
B

      Ankit Gyan                                                   Appeal dismissed.
      (Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)



C




D




E




F




G




H