Children born through void or voidable marriages under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act are considered legitimate and entitled to certain rights.

A.SELVAM, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 13.7.2015 passed in Original Application No.281 of 2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same.

2. The first respondent, as applicant, has filed Original Application No.281 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, wherein the present writ petitioners have been shown as respondents.

3. In O.A.No.281 of2014, it is averred that the applicant is the second wife of the deceased L.Somu, who served as Senior Trackman in Southern Railway and he passed away in harness in the year 2005. During his lifetime, he married the applicant with the consent of his first wife, since she has not begotten any issue. The first wife has passed away in the year 2012. The applicant is now getting family pension. Further, she received all benefits. As per section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the children of the applicant have become legitimate. Therefore, the applicant has sent an application to get an appointment on compassionate ground to her son by name S. Anand and the same has been rejected by the third respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present Original Application has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

4. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, after considering the rival contentions raised on either side, has allowed the Original Application No.281 of 2014 and quashed the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by the third respondent and also given necessary direction to provide employment on compassionate ground to the son of the applicant, by way of passing the impugned order and the same is being challenged in the present Writ Petition.

5. On the side of the first respondent, a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been clinchingly stated that in various proceedings, this Court as well as the Supreme Court have held that the children born through the second wife are also entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents has repeatedly contended that during subsistence of first marriage, the employee L.Somu has married the applicant. Under the said circumstances, the children born through her are not legitimate and also not entitled to get any appointment on compassionate ground and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, without considering the contentions raised on the side of the writ petitioners/respondents, has erroneously allowed the Original Application No.281 of 2014 and therefore, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, is liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/applicant has befittingly contended that even though the first respondent/applicant is the second wife of the concerned employee, as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, her children have become legitimate and they are entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:

i. Union of India vs. Umadevi - Bombay High Court judgment dated 22.4.2010 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2592 of 2007

ii. Union of India through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway vs. Basanti Devi and another - Jharkand High Court judgment dated 13.4.2011 in W.P.(S) No.4461 of 2008

iii. M.V.V.Prakash vs. Union of India and others - Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 24.7.2014 in W.P.(S) No.16 of 2014

iv. Union of India through its General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai 400 001 vs. Shri Pradeep Uttam Gid - Bombay High Court Judgment, Nagpur Bench, dated 31.7.2015 in W.P.No.3374 of 2014.

9. Pe