Railway Rule Giving Priority to First Wife for Compassionate Appointment is Discriminatory & Arbitrary: CAT Mumbai - 2025-08-06

Railway Rule Prioritizing First Wife for Jobs is Unconstitutional, Rules CAT Mumbai

Mumbai, July 24, 2025 — The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Mumbai Bench, has delivered a significant ruling, striking down a part of a Railway Board circular that gave priority to the first wife and her children over those from a second marriage for compassionate appointments. The Tribunal, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Shri Krishna (Member-A) and Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush (Member-J), declared the condition discriminatory, arbitrary, and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The bench quashed the rule requiring a "no objection certificate" from the first family and directed the South East Central Railway (SECR) to reconsider all claims based on individual merit and financial need, without giving automatic preference.

---

Background of the Case

The case was brought by Madhavi Ramdas Malvi, the 21-year-old daughter of a deceased railway employee, Ramdas Malvi, from his second marriage. Following her father's death in December 2022, Madhavi applied for a job on compassionate grounds, arguing that her family, consisting of her mother and three sisters (one minor), had lost their sole breadwinner and was facing financial destitution.

However, the SECR rejected her application on June 28, 2023. The rejection was based on a Railway Board circular (RBE No. 218/2019) which stipulates that a child from a second marriage can only be considered for compassionate appointment if there is "no objection" from the first wife or her children. Furthermore, the circular grants the first wife's claim priority over any competing claim from the second family.

In this case, the deceased's first wife, Sunita Malvi, had also applied for the compassionate appointment for herself, thereby blocking the applicant's claim under the existing rules.

Arguments in the Tribunal

Applicant's Stance: Advocate Shri Rahul Dhande, representing Madhavi Malvi, argued that the conditions in the railway circular were unconstitutional. Key arguments included: -

Violation of Equality: The rule creates an unfair classification between legitimate children of the same deceased employee, which is a violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality). -

Supreme Court Precedents: The applicant cited landmark Supreme Court judgments in Union of India vs. V.R. Tripathi (2019) and Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India (2022) . These rulings established that children from a second marriage, deemed legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, cannot be excluded from consideration for compassionate appointment. -

Arbitrary Conditions: The requirement for an NOC from the first wife was described as an arbitrary and onerous condition with no logical connection to the objective of compassionate appointment—which is to alleviate a family's financial crisis.

Railways' and First Wife's Defence: The SECR, represented by Advocate Shri N.P. Lambat, defended its decision by stating it was merely following the rules laid down in the 2019 circular. They argued the rule was intended to protect the rights of the legally wedded first wife and avoid internal family disputes.

The first wife, Sunita Malvi, represented by Advocate Shri C.L. Deharia, contended that the circular correctly established her priority and that the applicant had no right to deprive her of the employment benefit.

Tribunal's Landmark Decision

The CAT Bench heavily relied on the Supreme Court's reasoning in the V.R. Tripathi case. The Tribunal extracted pivotal observations from the Apex Court's judgment, emphasizing:

"Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would not be open to the State, consistent with Article 14 to exclude such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. Such a condition of exclusion is arbitrary and ultra vires."

The Tribunal noted that creating a sub-class within the class of legitimate children and giving one priority over the other is discriminatory. It held that the railway authorities failed to show any "object sought to be achieved" by imposing such restrictive conditions.

In its final order, the Tribunal concluded:

"...the impugned condition i.e. a child born to the second wife can be considered for such appointment only after ascertaining that there is no objection to this from the first wife or her children and where the first wife (legally wedded wife) opts for such compassionate appointment either for herself or one of her own children, such claim will have priority over any competing claim made by the second wife for any of her children, held to be discriminatory, arbitrary, unjust and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India..."

Final Order and Implications

The CAT quashed the restrictive conditions in the Railway Board's circular (RBE No. 218/2019) and set aside the rejection letter issued to the applicant.

The Tribunal has directed the railway authorities to reconsider the claims of both the applicant (Madhavi Malvi) and the first wife (Sunita Malvi) on their individual merits. The decision must be based on a comparative assessment of their financial needs and other eligibility criteria under the policy, without applying the now-quashed priority rule. The entire process is to be completed within 90 days. This judgment reinforces the principle of equality among all legitimate children of a deceased employee, ensuring that the benefit of compassionate appointment is extended to the most deserving claimant based on need, not the marital status of their parents.