Supreme Court settles compassionate appointment for children of second marriages in service matters (11 December 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1055
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ.
Can children born from a second marriage be denied compassionate appointment by the government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question, focusing on the rights of children born from void marriages in the context of government service. The court examined whether denying compassionate appointment to these children is discriminatory and violates their fundamental rights. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, with the majority opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The respondent’s father, Ramlakhan Tripathi, was employed as a Technician, Grade-I in Central Railways at Mumbai. He passed away on 28 November 2009, while still in service. The deceased employee had contracted a second marriage in 1987 while his first marriage was still valid. The respondent is the son from this second marriage. Following his father’s death, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment. The Railway Authorities rejected his application on 6 March 2012. The respondent then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in his favor. The Union of India and the Railway Authorities then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, challenging the Tribunal’s decision.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deals with the legitimacy of children born from void and voidable marriages. Specifically, Section 16(1) states:

“Notwithstanding that a marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976), and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act.”

Additionally, the Railway Board’s circular dated 2 January 1992, which was relied upon by the appellants, stated that compassionate appointments for the second widow and her children should not be considered unless the administration had permitted the second marriage.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Union of India):

• Compassionate appointment is not an alternative source of employment or a heritable right.
• It is dependent on the rules and schemes in place.
• Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, limits a child’s claim from a void marriage to the property of the parents only.
• The decision in Rameshwari Devi v State of Bihar is distinguishable because pension is a right based on previous service, while compassionate appointment is not.
• The government can restrict compassionate appointment to discourage bigamy.

Arguments by the Respondent:

• Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, clearly states that children from void marriages are legitimate.
• While the second spouse may not be entitled to compassionate appointment, children from the second marriage cannot be denied this benefit.
• The circular of the Railway Board dated 2 January 1992, was struck down by the Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar v Union of India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether the condition imposed by the Railway Board’s circular, which denies compassionate appointment to children born from a second marriage (unless the marriage was permitted by the administration), is consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Specifies the conditions for a valid Hindu marriage.
• Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Declares certain marriages as null and void.
• Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Deals with the legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.
• Section 16(1): States that children of void marriages are legitimate.
• Section 16(3): Restricts the rights of such children to the property of their parents.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Supreme Court relied on Director of Education (Secondary) v Pushpendra Kumar [1998 5 SCC 192]* to understand the object of compassionate appointment.
• The Supreme Court used State Bank of India v Raj Kumar [2010 11 SCC 661]* to clarify that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment.
• The Supreme Court cited V Sivamurthy v State of Andhra Pradesh [2008 13 SCC 730]* to summarise the principles of compassionate appointment.
• The Supreme Court used Rameshwari Devi v State of Bihar [2000 2 SCC 431]* to state that the principle of legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, must be applied in this case as well.
• The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar v Union of India [2010 1 Cal.LJ 464]* which had quashed the circular of the Railway Board.
• The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v Dilip Singh [2013 3 Cal.LT 379]* as it had incorrectly interpreted Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• The Supreme Court rejected the view of Madras High Court in M Muthuraj v Deputy General of Police, Tamil Nadu [2016 5 CTC 50]* which had taken the same view as Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v Dilip Singh.
• The Supreme Court approved the decision of the Madras High Court in Union of India v M Karumbayee [2017 Lab. IC (NOC 237) 69]* which had followed the view of the Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle of non-discrimination and the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Court emphasized that once the law recognizes a child as legitimate, they cannot be excluded from benefits like compassionate appointment. The Court also focused on the humanitarian aspect of compassionate appointment, which is to prevent destitution in the family of a deceased employee.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which limits the property rights of children from void marriages, also limits their right to compassionate appointment. The Court reasoned that the legitimacy granted by Section 16(1) is not restricted by Section 16(3) for other purposes.

The Court stated that the exclusion of children born from a second marriage from seeking compassionate appointment was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The court observed that:

“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. It would be offensive to and defeat the whole object of ensuring the dignity of the family of a deceased employee who has died in harness. It brings about unconstitutional discrimination between one class of legitimate beneficiaries – legitimate children.”

The Court also noted that:

“Children do not choose their parents. 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.”

The Court further observed that:

“Having regard to the purpose and object of a scheme of compassionate appointment, once the law has treated such children as legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered for compassionate appointment.”

The Court also addressed the issue of the Railway Board re-issuing the circular that had already been struck down by the Calcutta High Court. The Court held that it was improper for the Railway Board to do so after the decision in Namita Goldar had attained finality.

Key Takeaways

• Children born from a second marriage are legally considered legitimate under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• They cannot be denied compassionate appointment solely on the basis that they were born from a second marriage.
• Government policies must be consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality and non-discrimination.
• The decision has implications for other government schemes and policies that may discriminate against children of second marriages.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the authorities to take a decision on the application for compassionate appointment within three months, in accordance with the judgment. The Court also directed that the authorities should scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfills all other requirements, in accordance with the law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that children born from a void marriage are legitimate under Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and cannot be discriminated against in matters of compassionate appointment. This decision clarifies that the legitimacy granted by Section 16(1) is not limited by Section 16(3) for purposes other than property rights. This judgment also reinforces the principle that government policies must adhere to the constitutional guarantee of equality and non-discrimination.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that children born from a second marriage are entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment and that denying them this right is discriminatory and unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the legitimacy of such children is established by law and cannot be ignored by government policies. The judgment reinforces the principles of equality and non-discrimination in public employment and ensures that the benefits of compassionate appointment are extended to all legitimate children.