News Desk, AnyTV, New Delhi
Published by: Abhishek Dixit
Updated Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:03 PM IST
Summary
A bench of Justice UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha said that the policy of denying such appointment is discriminatory and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution.
hear the news
Expansion
A bench of Justice UU Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice PS Narasimha said that the policy of denying such appointment is discriminatory and violative of Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The top court said the policy cannot discriminate against any person by classifying the children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendants.
The apex court in its judgment has said that the scheme and the rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. When Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act recognizes a child born out of a marriage while the first marriage is valid, if the policy or rule prevents such child from availing the benefit of compassionate appointment, then this Article-14 would be violated.
The top court allowed an appeal filed by Mukesh Kumar against the Patna High Court’s decision which had rejected his claim of compassionate appointment in the Railways, being the son of the second wife of the deceased Jagdish Harijan.
The apex court relied upon the judgment in Union of India v K Tripathi (2019) which held that the child of the second wife of an employee cannot be denied compassionate appointment merely on that ground.
The judgment authored by Justice Narasimha said that the circular has created two categories between a section. The judgment said that once the law has recognized a child born of a second marriage as legitimate, it would be impossible to exclude them from being considered under the policy. The exclusion of a section of legitimate children would in a sense defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee.
The court also pointed out that since compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, the policy of compassionate appointment should be in conformity with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That is, the policy of compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, should not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including inheritance.