Adopted child by widow after government servant's death not entitled to family pension.

The applicant, Naresh Kumar, is the adopted son of the deceased employee, Betali, who died on 17.04.1995 while in service.

Betali was survived by his widow, Nirmala, a son, Govind, and a minor daughter, Meena.

Pension was initially released to Nirmala.

Govind died on 06.08.1995.

Nirmala adopted the applicant through a registered adoption deed on 30.04.1996.

Nirmala herself died on 27.10.1996 while receiving family pension.

Meena also died on 24.04.2004.

The applicant sought family pension as the legally adopted son of the deceased employee.

His claim was rejected by Respondent Nos. 3, 4, and 1 through orders dated 25.07.2011, 09.08.2011, and 03.01.2012, respectively.

The rejection was on the ground that a child adopted by the widow after the death of the Railway servant cannot be treated as a member of the deceased's family for family pension purposes.

The Respondent No. 1 clarified that there are no instructions for granting family pension to a child legally adopted by the spouse after the demise of the Railway servant.

1. Whether Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Railway Servants Pension Rules, 1993, is arbitrary, discriminatory, and irrational?

2. Whether a child adopted by the widow of a deceased Railway servant after the death of the Railway servant is entitled to family pension under Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Rules?

The Central Administrative Tribunal primarily applied Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Railway Servants Pension Rules, 1993, which defines 'family' for pension purposes.

The Tribunal also considered the amendment to Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) made by notification dated 03.02.1995, which deleted the words "before retirement but shall not include a son or daughter adopted after retirement".

The Tribunal relied on the interpretation of the analogous Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar v. Union of India and Anr.* (2023).

The Supreme Court held that for family pension, adoption must be made by the government servant during his/her lifetime, not by the surviving spouse after death.

The Supreme Court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the phrase "in relation to a government servant," the purpose of family pension as succour for dependents, and the principle of *Nocitur a Sociis*.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claim by first examining the original and amended text of Rule 75(19)(b)(iii) of the Railway Servants Pension Rules, 1993.

While the amendment deleted the phrase "before retirement but shall not include a son or daughter adopted after retirement," leaving only "adopted legally," the Tribunal noted that this deletion alone does not automatically include children adopted by a widow after the employee's death.

The pivotal aspect of the analysis was the direct application of the *Shri Ram Shridhar Chimurkar* judgment.

This Supreme Court ruling, interpreting an analogous provision (Rule 54(14)(b) of the CCS (Pension) Rules), unequivocally held that for family pension benefits, "adoption" must refer to an adoption made by the government servant during his/her lifetime, not by a surviving spouse after the government servant's demise.

The Supreme Court reasoned that family pension is intended to support dependents who had a direct association and dependence on the deceased government servant during their lifetime, and an adopted child of the widow after death falls outside this scope.

The Tribunal found no mention in the amended Railway Rules to specifically include such a child, and consistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation, it concluded that expanding the meaning of "legally adopted" in Rule 75 would be impermissible.

It acknowledged that such an adoption might be valid for property inheritance but not for the deceased employee's family pension.

Therefore, the instant original application was dismissed as being devoid of merits.

The impugned orders dated 25.07.2011, 09.08.2011, and 03.01.2012, which rejected the applicant's claim, were implicitly upheld.