HC: Child From 2nd Marriage Entitled To Compassionate Job

Nagpur: Reinforcing principles of equality and social justice, the Nagpur bench of Bombay high court recently set aside rejection of a young man's claim for compassionate appointment, holding that denial based solely on his birth from a second marriage was legally untenable.A division bench comprising Justices Mukulika Jawalkar and Nandesh Deshpande quashed communication issued by Wardha Zilla Parishad on May 16, 2023, which rejected the Arvi resident's petition on grounds that he was son of the second wife of a deceased employee. The petitioner challenged the ZP communication through counsel NR Saboo. The court directed the authorities to include his name in the list of eligible candidates "if he is otherwise eligible" and complete the process within two weeks. The petitioner's father, a driver with the Zilla Parishad, was still employed when he died on March 23, 2003. The petitioner was about four years old then. After attaining majority on January 15, 2017, he applied for compassionate appointment within a month and followed it up with representations. His claim was rejected citing the invalidity of his mother's marriage under the Hindu law.The court held that the basis of denial was "apparently erroneous". It relied on Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs VR Tripathi. "Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, says that even if a marriage is later declared null and void under Section 11, the child born from that marriage still remains legitimate. This protection does not depend on whether the child is born before or after 1976, or whether a court has passed a decree of nullity or not. Because of this law, the Zilla Parishad's order treating the child as illegitimate is wrong and cannot be allowed," the judges said.Quoting the apex court, the bench noted, "Legitimacy of a child born from a marriage which is null and void is a matter of public policy to protect a child from suffering the consequences of illegitimacy." The court underscored that such children cannot be denied benefits solely due to circumstances of birth, aligning the ruling with constitutional guarantees under Article 14.