Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yuvraj Dajee Khadake, is the son of a railway employee who died in harness on 12 August 2003. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Railway Board's scheme. The Divisional Railway Manager rejected the application by communication dated 6 December 2016 on the sole ground that the petitioner's parents' marriage was solemnized during the subsistence of the father's first marriage, rendering it void. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this rejection, contending that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, confers legitimacy on children of void marriages and that he could not be denied compassionate appointment merely on account of the invalid marriage of his parents. The respondent Union of India defended the rejection by relying on a Railway Board circular dated 21 March 2018 which specifically stated that a son or daughter treated as legitimate under Section 16 is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment. It was also argued that the earlier Division Bench judgment in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, which held to the contrary, was rendered before the said circular and that another Division Bench in Union of India v. Pradeep Uttam Gid had taken a contrary view. The core legal issue was whether Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act overrides administrative instructions on compassionate appointment. The Court examined the settled principle that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is governed by the policy in force at the time of consideration. However, it noted that an earlier circular dated 2 January 1992 barring children of second marriages was struck down by the Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar v. Union of India, and that decision had attained finality. The Court then analysed the ratio in V.R. Tripathi, which had extensively dealt with Section 16 and Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, concluding that children of void marriages are legitimate and cannot be discriminated against. The Court observed that a subsequent coordinate bench in Pradeep Uttam Gid took a different view, but held that the controversy was conclusively settled by the Supreme Court's dismissal of the Union's appeal against V.R. Tripathi in Civil Appeal No.12015 of 2018 on 11 December 2018. That dismissal, the Court held, affirmed the correctness of V.R. Tripathi and made it binding. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned communication dated 6 December 2016 and directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and existing circulars, clarifying that the claim could not be rejected on the ground of the petitioner's parents' void marriage. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Compassionate Appointment - Denial on Ground of Illegitimacy - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 16 - The petitioner, son of a deceased railway employee from a second marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, was denied compassionate appointment on the ground that the marriage was void. The Court held that Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act explicitly confers legitimacy on children of void marriages, and such children cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely because of the void nature of the parents' marriage. The Railway Board circular dated 21 March 2018 cannot override the statutory provision. (Paras 1, 5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Binding Precedent - The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.12015 of 2018 dismissed the Union of India's appeal against the Division Bench decision in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, affirming that children of void marriages are legitimate under Section 16 and entitled to compassionate appointment. The Court held that this decision settles the legal position and is binding, leaving no room for a contrary view. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner could have been denied compassionate appointment notwithstanding the provisions of section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The High 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 in accordance with law and existing circulars, clarifying that the claim could not be rejected on the ground of the petitioner's parents' void marriage. The petition succeeded with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- compassionate appointment is not a normal source of appointment and is governed by the policy in force on the date of consideration of the application
- Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act
- 1955
- specifically provides that children of void marriages are legitimate and cannot be denied compassionate appointment on the ground of illegitimacy
- Railway Board circulars cannot override statutory provisions
- the Supreme Court's decision in Civil Appeal No.12015 of 2018 dismissing Union's appeal against V.R. Tripathi settles the law that children of void marriages are entitled to compassionate appointment
