Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yuvraj Dajee Khadake, sought compassionate appointment after his father, an employee of the Central Railway, died in harness on 12 August 2003. The respondent, Union of India, rejected his application on 6 December 2016 on the ground that the petitioner's parents' marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of the father's first marriage, rendering it void. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, children born from void marriages are deemed legitimate and thus entitled to compassionate appointment. The respondent relied on a Railway Board circular dated 21 March 2018, which stated that such children are not entitled to compassionate appointment, and on a contrary decision of another Division Bench in Union of India v. Pradeep Uttam Gid. The court, however, followed the earlier Division Bench decision in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, which held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a child deemed legitimate under Section 16. The court noted that the circular relied upon by the respondent was not in existence when the V.R. Tripathi decision was rendered and did not override the legal position. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned communication and directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh in light of the legal principles laid down.
Headnote
A) Compassionate Appointment - Legitimacy of Children - Section 16 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Denial of compassionate appointment to child born from void marriage - The court held that a child deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be denied compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the marriage of his parents was void. The court relied on the decision in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi and distinguished the Railway Board circular as not applicable to the facts. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a child born from a second marriage, which is void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can be denied compassionate appointment despite being deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Act.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned communication dated 6 December 2016, and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment afresh in light of the legal position that a child deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be denied compassionate appointment solely on the ground of the invalidity of the parents' marriage.
Law Points
- Compassionate appointment
- Section 16 Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- Legitimacy of children
- Railway Board circular
- Policy interpretation
