Supreme Court Allows Compassionate Appointment for Son of Second Wife: Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India (24 February 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2022
Citation: Mukesh Kumar & Anr vs. The Union of India & Ors. Civil Appeal No. /2022 arising out of SLP(C) No. 18571/2018
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J. (Majority Opinion by Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.)

Can a child born from a second marriage be denied a compassionate appointment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning the Indian Railways’ policy. The court ruled that denying compassionate appointment solely based on the parent’s second marriage is discriminatory and violates constitutional principles. This judgment clarifies the rights of children from second marriages in the context of compassionate appointments.

Case Background

Jagdish Harijan, an employee of the Indian Railways, had two wives: Gayatri Devi (first wife) and Konika Devi (second wife). Mukesh Kumar, the appellant, is the son of Jagdish Harijan through his second wife, Konika Devi. Jagdish Harijan passed away while in service on 24 February 2014. Following his death, Gayatri Devi sought a compassionate appointment for her step-son, Mukesh Kumar. However, the Indian Railways rejected the request, citing a policy that excludes children of second wives from compassionate appointments. This decision was upheld by the departmental appeal and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna. The appellants then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Patna, which was also dismissed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, dismissed the original application filed by the appellants. Subsequently, the appellants approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which also dismissed the writ petition, upholding the decision of the Tribunal. The High Court did not accept the reliance placed on the decisions of the Madras High Court, which had followed the Calcutta High Court decision in Namita Goldar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2010) 1 Cal. LJ 464, which had quashed the same circular of the railways dated 02.01.1992. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
• Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination in public employment on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them.
• Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: This section recognizes the legitimacy of children born from marriages that are void or voidable. As per the source, the Court noted, “Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would not be open to the State, consistent with Article 14 to exclude such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment.”

The Court emphasized that any policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and cannot discriminate on grounds of descent.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• The counsel for the appellants, Shri Manish Kumar Saran, argued that the issue is already settled by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646. In that case, the court held that a child of a second wife cannot be denied compassionate appointment solely on that ground.
• The appellants also relied on the judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in Namita Goldar (supra), which was approved by the Supreme Court in V.R. Tripathi.

Arguments of the Respondents:

• The counsel for the respondents, Smt. Meera Patel, argued that the Railway Board’s Circular No. E(NG) II/2018/RC-1/5 dated 21.03.2018, which supersedes the circular dated 02.01.1992, states that if a legally wedded surviving widow does not want to be considered, she cannot nominate illegitimate sons/daughters of her husband for compassionate appointment.
• The respondents also contended that the judgment in V.R. Tripathi only directs consideration of the application and not a guaranteed appointment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue before the Supreme Court was:

• Whether the condition imposed by the Railway Board circular, which denies compassionate appointment to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee, is legally sustainable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646: The Court followed this judgment, reiterating that children of a second wife cannot be denied compassionate appointment on that ground alone.
• Namita Goldar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2010) 1 Cal. LJ 464: This judgment was approved by the Supreme Court in V.R. Tripathi and was relied upon to support the quashing of the discriminatory circular.
• V. Sivamurthy v. State of A.P., (2008) 13 SCC 730: This case was used to highlight that appointments based solely on descent are impermissible, but compassionate appointments are an exception.
• Director General of Posts v. K. Chandrashekar Rao, (2013) 3 SCC 310: This case was cited to show that compassionate appointments are an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16.
• State of Haryana v. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704: This case was used to support the constitutionality of compassionate appointments.
• Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 631: This case was also used to support the constitutionality of compassionate appointments.
• Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., (1961) 2 SCR 931: This case was used to define ‘descent’ as encompassing familial origins.
• Union of India v. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, MANU/DE/3959/2014, WP(C) No.9008/2014 dt 19.04.2014: The Court approved this decision, which held that descent cannot be a ground for denying employment under the scheme of compassionate appointments.
• K. Santhosha v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corp Ltd., 2022(1) Kant LJ 154: The Court noted that this High Court had followed the ruling in V.R. Tripathi.
• Yuvraj DajeeKhadake v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 299: The Court noted that this High Court had followed the ruling in V.R. Tripathi.
• Union of India v Rohit Chand, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 157: The Court noted that this High Court had followed the ruling in V.R. Tripathi.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution. The Court emphasized that:

• Denying compassionate appointment to children of second wives solely based on their descent is discriminatory and violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
• The purpose of compassionate appointment is to alleviate destitution in the family of a deceased employee, and this purpose should not be defeated by discriminatory policies.
• Once the law recognizes children from a second marriage as legitimate, they cannot be excluded from the benefits of compassionate appointment.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal principles and precedents, with a focus on ensuring that the law is applied fairly and equally to all.

Logical Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning followed a logical progression from the constitutional principles of equality to the specific legal provisions and precedents.

The Supreme Court held that the denial of compassionate appointment to the son of the second wife was discriminatory and violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The Court stated, “Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 if the policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment.” The Court further added, “The exclusion of one class of legitimate children from seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground that the mother of the applicant was a plural wife of the deceased employee would fail to meet the test of a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved.” The Court also emphasized, “To deny compassionate appointment though the law treats a child of a void marriage as legitimate is deeply offensive to their dignity and is offensive to the constitutional guarantee against discrimination.”

Key Takeaways

• Children born from a second marriage cannot be denied compassionate appointment solely on the basis of their descent.
• Policies that discriminate against children based on the marital status of their parents are unconstitutional.
• Compassionate appointments must be considered in light of the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
• The judgment reaffirms the principles established in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the authorities to consider the case of Mukesh Kumar for compassionate appointment as per the extant policy. The Court also specified that the process of consideration should be completed within three months from the date of the judgment. The Court clarified that the authorities are entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfills all other requirements in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that denying compassionate appointment to children of a second wife solely on the basis of their descent is discriminatory and violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution. This judgment reinforces the legal position established in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi and clarifies that policies must be consistent with constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India reaffirms the rights of children born from second marriages in the context of compassionate appointments. The Court held that denying such appointments solely based on descent is discriminatory and violates constitutional principles. This decision ensures that all children, regardless of their parents’ marital status, are treated equally under the law when it comes to compassionate appointments.