Illegitimate child entitled to compassionate appointment: Chhattisgarh High Court

The Chhattisgarh High Court recently echoed the legal principle that even an illegitimate son or daughter is entitled to compassionate appointment on death of their father [Piyush Kumar Anchal v. State of Chhattisgarh]..Justice Sanjay K Agrawal delivered this ruling in a challenge to an order rejecting the petitioner’s application on the grounds of an invalid succession certificate. “The fact remains that even the illegitimate son / daughter is also entitled for compassionate appointment and this question is no longer res integra and stand decided authoritatively by the Supreme Court” the Court said. .The dispute in the case was whether the petitioner’s mother was the first wife of the deceased..The case of Union of India and others v VR Tripathi was considered where the Supreme Court held that a child born out of second marriage is still a legitimate child and is entitled to compassionate appointment."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 top court had held in that case. .That view was upheld in Mukesh Kumar v The Union of India where a three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court had said, “The policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant.”.The High Court in the instant case accordingly reiterated that an illegitimate son cannot be denied consideration towards compassionate appointment.Thus, the Court remitted the matter to the respondent authorities to consider the applications of both the sons, after giving them an opportunity to represent their entitlement and eligibility.A decision in this regard was directed to be taken within 45 days, on its own merits..Advocate Rakesh Pandey appeared for the petitioner. The respondents were represented by Additional Advocate General Amrito Das and advocate BD Guru..[Read Order]