Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3593

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Veena Kothavale, Judicial Member, Sisir Kumar Ratho, Administrative Member
C. Kathirvel – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 310/00598 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Shanmugam
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC Ms. M.E. Rani Selvam

Children from void second marriage, deemed legitimate under Section 16 HMA, cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment by employer policy, as it violates Article 14 equality; must be considered to prevent destitution like other legitimate children.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Compassionate appointment - Deceased employee had two wives, first marriage subsisting when second contracted, rendering it void - Child born to second wife deemed legitimate under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Section 16(1) - Railway Board circular dated 02.01.1992 barring compassionate appointment to children of second wife quashed as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 - Subsequent relaxations (RBE 218/2019, clarified 18.03.2021) not applicable retrospectively - No competing claim from first wife or children timely filed - Impugned rejection order relying on quashed circular set aside; fresh consideration directed. (Paras 15-21)

(B) Compassionate appointment - Scheme not heritable right but concession to prevent destitution - Must align with constitutional equality; cannot discriminate between legitimate children based on parents' marital status - Legitimacy under Section 16 HMA overrides employer policy excluding second marriage offspring absent administrative permission. (Paras 13-18)

Facts of the case:
Deceased railway employee died in 2011 leaving first wife and children, plus child from void second marriage. Succession certificate recognized all as legal heirs for terminal benefits, declaring second marriage void. Applicant (child from second wife), qualified and aged 22, applied for compassionate appointment within 3 years of majority in 2022. Prior tribunal directed consideration; rejected citing 1992 circular. No prior claim from first family; belated claim post-rejection.

Findings of Court:
1992 Railway circular quashed by higher courts; rejection improper as Supreme Court ruling deems children of void marriages legitimate for compassionate benefits. No priority claim from first wife/family enforced timely.

Issues: Eligibility of child from void second marriage for compassionate appointment despite Railway policy; applicability of quashed circular and prospective guidelines; effect of succession certificate and lack of competing claims.

Ratio Decidendi: Employer policy excluding legitimate children (per Section 16 HMA) from compassionate appointment lacks reasonable nexus to scheme's object of relieving destitution, offending Article 14; all legitimate children eligible absent valid priority claims.

Result: OA allowed; impugned order quashed, respondents directed to reconsider claim afresh within two months.

Table of Content
1. applicant's claim for compassionate appointment post-father's death. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. rejection based on 1992 railway policy barring second wife's children. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. applicant's arguments: legal heir status, supreme court precedent. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. respondents' defense: policy priority to first wife, no vested right. (Para 12 , 13)
5. 1992 circular quashed; section 16 hma legitimizes second marriage children. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
6. no competing claims from first family; belated objections mala fide. (Para 19 , 20)
7. impugned order quashed; reconsider claim per supreme court ruling. (Para 21 , 22)

(Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J)

Applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal nd Act, 1985 seeking to set aside the order dated 11.01.2023 passed by the 2 nd respondent and consequently direct the 2 respondent to appoint the applicant in any suitable post in the respondents office within the time stipulated by this Hon'ble Tribunal.

2. The case of the applicant is that his father, T. Chelladurai initially joined Railway department on 21.06.1986 and worked as a Fitter Helper in Southern Railway Office at Trichy and while working as such, he died on 12.11.2011 due to ill health. Applicant is the legal heir of the deceased Chelladurai and his as well as his mother's name have been duly included in the Service Records maintained by the Southern Railway Department, Trichy.

3. The applicant states that his father has two wives, and he was born through the second wife. The first wife, Palaniammal has one daughter (Radha) and two sons (Raja & Sathishkumar) and being legal heirs of his father through first wife, they got monetary benefits and all other benefits except compassionate ground appointment. As they have not studied and are illiterate, and they are not eligible for any government job. As such, applicant is the only person who is entitled to get the employment under the respondent Railways on compassionate ground.

4. Applicant submits that he has been declared as one of the legal heirs of the deceased Chelladurai by the Hon'ble Subordinate Civil Court, Trichy in Succession OP. No. 25/2012 vide order dated 14.10.2019. Pursuant thereto, applicant is entitled to get compassionate ground employment in the respondent Railway on demise of his father. Applicant states that he possesses all requisite qualifications as he has completed B. Sc. Computer Science. He is now aged 22 years and thus attained majority also. Within the 3 years on attaining majority, applicant has submitted his application to the respondents on 08.07.2022 seeking employment under compassionate grounds. Even though the respondents had received and acknowledged his application, but no action was taken. His representation was also not considered. As he did not have any income and his family suffering due to indigent circumstances, he filed O.A. No.1071 of 2022 before this Tribunal which was disposed of by order dated 28.11.2022 directing the respondents to consider his representation and pass order in accordance with law within three months.

5. Pursuant thereto, the 2 respondent vide impugned order dated 11.1.2023,

rejected the representation of the applicant on the ground that on the date of the

demise of the applicant's father on 12.9.2012, the Railway Board's Letter No.

E(NG)II/2016/RC-1/CR/12 (Pt.) dated 2.1.1992 was in vogue which provided that

appointment on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not considered unless the Administration has permitted the second marriage in special circumstances taking into account the personal law, etc., and that no such permission was granted by the Administration to the applicant's father for second marriage while he was in service.

6. Respondents have entered appearance through their counsel Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC, and filed their reply statement contending that while in service, Shri. T. Chelladurai, Fitter Helper died on 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3593

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALVeena Kothavale, Judicial Member, Sisir Kumar Ratho, Administrative MemberC. Kathirvel – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOA No. 310/00598 of 2023

Children from void second marriage, deemed legitimate under Section 16 HMA, cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment by employer policy, as it violates Article 14 equality; must be considered to prevent destitution like other legitimate children.

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Veena Kothavale, Judicial Member, Sisir Kumar Ratho, Administrative Member
C. Kathirvel – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 310/00598 of 2023