Children born from void marriages entitled to compassionate appointment, SC

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court held that children born out of a void marriage are legitimate children, and cannot be denied the benefits of compassionate appointment..Noting that “children do not choose their parents”, the judgment delivered by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah states that to deny compassionate appointment to a child born of a void marriage is “deeply offensive”..“Children do not choose their parents. To deny compassionate appointment though the law treats a child of a void marriage as legitimate is deeply offensive to their dignity and is offensive to the constitutional guarantee against discrimination.”.Through this appeal filed by the Union of India, a decision of the Bombay High Court was challenged wherein compassionate appointment of the respondent, who is a child born from a second marriage, was allowed..The father of the respondent was employed by the Central Railways in Mumbai and during the term of his service, contracted a second marriage. Upon the demise of his father, the respondent applied for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by the Central Railways Authorities..The respondent then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against the rejection of his application, and the Tribunal ruled in his favour. A review petition filed by the Central Railways against this order was dismissed, which an appeal before the Bombay High Court..In the meanwhile, the Railway Board issued a circular stating that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from a second marriage of a deceased employee..The High Court, ruling that a child born in a second marriage is recognised as a legitimate child, found no merits in the petition and upheld the Tribunal’s decision. Aggrieved by the same, the Railway Authorities appealed before the Supreme Court..Additional Solicitor General Aman Lekhi, appearing for the Centre, submitted that the rights of a child born in a second marriage were only with respect to inheritance and property, whereas the right to employment was not an inheritable right. It was also submitted that since the heirs of a deceased employee do not have a right to a compassionate appointment, the Central Agencies can form policy in a way to exclude spouses of second marriages or children born from them..Advocates Arjun Singh Bhati and Apurv Parashar, arguing on behalf of the respondent, pointed out that the Hindu Marriage Act recognises as legitimate, those children born from null and void marriages. It was also argued that as a policy decision, a spouse of a null and void marriage may be excluded, but a child recognised as legitimate by the law of the land, cannot..While considering the question of whether compassionate appointment can be treated as a right, the Court observed that it is an entitlement and not a right. It went on to examine the object and purpose of such a scheme..“Compassionate appointment is intended to alleviate the hardship that the family of a deceased employee may face upon premature death while in service. Compassionate appointment, in other words, is not founded merely on parentage or descent, for public employment must be consistent with equality of opportunity which Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees.”.The Court also dwelled upon the issue of whether a policy can exclude children born from null marriages. It concluded that while the law holds marriages contracted the during subsistence of a valid marriage as void, children born from the same are treated as legitimate children. The law extends all the rights and protections to such children and the State cannot go against the principles of Article 14 to exclude such children while devising a policy, the Court held..“Undoubtedly, while designing a policy of compassionate appointment, the State can prescribe the terms on which it can be granted. However, it is not open to the State, while making the scheme or rules, to lay down a condition which is inconsistent with Article 14 of the Constitution. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to prevent destitution and penury in the family of a deceased employee.”.It went on to hold that the Railway Board’s circular creates two categories of legitimate children of deceased employees. Holding that such classification bears no nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the Court held,.“Having regard to the purpose and object of a scheme of compassionate appointment, once the law has treated such children as legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered for compassionate appointment. Children do not choose their parents. To deny compassionate appointment though the law treats a child of a void marriage as legitimate is deeply offensive to their dignity and is offensive to the constitutional guarantee against discrimination.”.Therefore, the Court highlighted that the respondent in the case meets all the requirements essential for applying for a compassionate appointment, and dismissed the appeal..Read the Judgment: