Mukesh Kumar & Anr. vs The Union of India & Ors.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

24 February 2022

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2022

Result

Allowed

Bench

Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Citation

[2022] 1 S.C.R. 644 : 2022 INSC 229

Headnote

Constitution of India: Art.16(2) – Condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee – Held: Is not sustainable – Denial to grant compassionate appointment only on the ground of descent under Art.16(2) amounts to discrimination.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: While compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. That is to say, a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent. In this regard, ‘descent’ must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant’s legitimacy as their child. 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. Apart from the fact that strict scrutiny would reveal that the classification is suspect, as demonstrated by this Court in V.R. Tripathi, it will instantly fall foul of the constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the ground of descent. Such a policy is violative of Article 16(2). As appellant No.1, cannot be denied consideration under the scheme of compassionate appointments only because he is the son of the second wife, there shall be a direction to consider his case as per the extant policy. The Authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all other requirements in accordance with the law. [Paras 9, 11] [651-A-D; 652-C-D]

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The short issue arising for consideration, in this case, is whether the condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased employee is legally sustainable. Having considered the matter, we have agreed with the counsel for the appellant that the issue is covered by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi.1 We have allowed the appeal on this ground. We have also held that such a d

View Subscription Plans →