Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 163

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
MUKESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Manish Kumar Saran, Satya Prakash Sharan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Amrish Kumar, Advocate

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The Court held that excluding children born from a second marriage from compassionate appointment is unconstitutional and violates Article 14 (nexus and non-arbitrariness) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Descent must be understood to include familial origins and the legitimacy of a child born from a second marriage cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment; policy must not discriminate on descent (!) (!) (!) - There shall be a direction to consider Mukesh Kumar’s case under the extant policy; process to decide must be completed within three months (!) - Judgment cites Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi and holds the relevant circular is not sustainable to exclude such children from compassionate appointments (!) (!) - The appeal is allowed; authorities shall scrutinize applications per law and complete within three months (!) (!)

What is the legality of excluding children born from a second marriage of a deceased employee from compassionate appointments under Circular No. E(NG) II/2018/RC-1/5?

What are the rights of a child born from a second wife concerning compassionate appointment under the Hindu Marriage Act and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

What standards guide whether compassionate appointment policies must accommodate legitimate children irrespective of descent?

JUDGMENT

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Leave granted.

2. The short issue arising for consideration, in this case, is whether the condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee is legally sustainable. Having considered the matter, we have agreed with the counsel for the appellant that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi., (2019) 14 SCC 646. We have allowed the appeal on this ground. We have also held that such a denial is discriminatory, being only on the ground of descent under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. We shall first refer to the facts of the case before applying the law for disposal of this appeal.

Facts:

3. The facts, in brief, are that Jagdish Harijan was an employee of the Indian Railways appointed on 16.11.1977. In his lifetime, Shri Jagdish Harijan had two wives, appellant No.2, Gayatri Devi, was his first wife and Konika Devi, since deceased, was his second wife. The appellant No. 1 Mukesh Kumar is his son through his second wife. Shri Jagdish Harijan died in service on 24.02.2014. Shortly after that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(SC) 163

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHAMUKESH KUMAR – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA – Respondent

What is the legality of excluding children born from a second marriage of a deceased employee from compassionate appointments under Circular No. E(NG) II/2018/RC-1/5?

What are the rights of a child born from a second wife concerning compassionate appointment under the Hindu Marriage Act and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution?

What standards guide whether compassionate appointment policies must accommodate legitimate children irrespective of descent?

Cases Referred (7)

UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
MUKESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent