Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a challenge to a Railway Board circular that denied compassionate appointment to children born from the second marriage of a deceased employee. The appellants, the son of the deceased through his second wife and the first wife, sought appointment on compassionate grounds after the employee's death in 2014. Their representation was rejected based on the circular, and subsequent appeals before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court were dismissed. The core legal issue was whether the circular's condition was legally sustainable under constitutional principles. The appellants argued that the issue was covered by the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, which held such denial discriminatory, and relied on High Court decisions quashing the same circular. The respondents contended that the circular, as per a superseding version, prohibited nomination of illegitimate sons/daughters if the surviving widow did not want consideration, and that the precedent only mandated consideration, not appointment. The court analyzed the matter by referencing V.R. Tripathi, where it was held that denying compassionate appointment to children of a second marriage violates Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution, as Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deems such children legitimate. The court emphasized that the circular created an arbitrary classification without reasonable nexus to the object of preventing destitution, and discrimination on the ground of descent is expressly prohibited. It also noted that compassionate appointment, while an exception to Article 16, must comply with constitutional mandates. The court allowed the appeal, quashing the discriminatory condition and directing consideration of the application, aligning with the precedent that such exclusion is unconstitutional.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equality and Non-Discrimination - Articles 14 and 16(2) Constitution of India - Compassionate Appointment - Railway Board circular denied appointment to children of second marriage - Court held denial discriminatory and arbitrary as it creates two categories among legitimate children without reasonable nexus to object of preventing destitution - Violates constitutional guarantee against discrimination on ground of descent (Paras 6-9). B) Family Law - Legitimacy of Children - Section 16 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Compassionate Appointment Eligibility - Child born from second marriage while earlier marriage subsisting deemed legitimate under Section 16 - Court held exclusion from compassionate appointment based solely on this ground impermissible as law treats such children as legitimate - Offensive to dignity and unconstitutional (Paras 6-7). C) Administrative Law - Policy Validity - Railway Board Circular - Compassionate Appointment Scheme - Circular dated 02.01.1992 and superseding circular dated 21.03.2018 imposed condition denying appointment to children of second wife - Court quashed condition as ultra vires and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 16 - Policy must not discriminate on ground of descent (Paras 2-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee is legally sustainable
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; condition in Railway Board circular denying compassionate appointment to children of second marriage held discriminatory and unsustainable; court directed consideration of application in light of judgment
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment cannot be denied to children born from a second marriage of a deceased employee solely on that ground
- as it violates Articles 14 and 16(2) of the Constitution of India
- and such children are deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
