Case Title:
Smt. Lachhmina Devi & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.
Date of Order:
4th December 2024
Bench:
The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay
Parties:
Petitioner: Smt. Lachhmina Devi & Anr
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Subject:
The Calcutta High Court struck down a Railway Board Circular excluding children born from void marriages from compassionate appointment schemes. The court held the circular unconstitutional under Article 14, emphasizing statutory legitimacy under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and directed authorities to reassess the petitioner’s eligibility for compassionate appointment.
Important Provisions
- Article 14 of the Indian Constitution
This provision guarantees the right to equality and prohibits discrimination by the State. The court used this to evaluate the Railway Board Circular's constitutionality and its implications for children born from void marriages. - Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
This section provides legitimacy to children born from void and voidable marriages, ensuring they are not excluded from inheritance rights or other legal benefits. The court relied on this to emphasize the discriminatory nature of the circular. - Railway Board Circular No. E[NG]II/91/RC-1/136, dated 2 January 1992
This circular excluded children born from void marriages from consideration for compassionate appointments. The validity of this circular was the core issue in the judgment. - Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956
Recognizes a legal obligation to maintain legitimate and illegitimate children. The court likely considered this provision in analyzing the broader rights of children. - Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation
The court considered this doctrine while evaluating whether the petitioner had a rightful claim to be considered for compassionate appointment. - Article 226 of the Indian Constitution
The provision under which the writ petition was filed. It empowers High Courts to issue orders or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal rights.
Introduction
The case raises the question of whether children born of void marriages can be kept out of compassionate appointment schemes, a measure that has been enacted to provide a measure of financial relief for the families of deceased employees. It's on the denial, by the virtue of illegitimacy, of a compassionate appointment application filed by petitioner no. 2, son of the deceased railway employee's second wife. The petitioners attacked the denial with a sense of it offending Article 14 of the Constitution, which is premised on the principle of equality before the law.
This is a case dealing with complex legal principles of benevolent appointments, the legality of children under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the very purpose of welfare schemes.
The judgment analyzes the interplay between statutory provisions and fundamental rights, reflecting the judiciary's responsibility to balance legislative intent with constitutional guarantees.
Facts
The case has emerged on the basis of the death of a Head Constable in RPF named Gorakh Nath Pandey, who died during his service. After his death, petitioner no. 1, Smt. She, is the second wife of the deceased, to whom, according to a compassionate appointment applied by her on behalf of her son, petitioner no. 2, she was denied by the railway authorities through a Railway Board Circular issued on 2nd January 1992. That circular explicitly disqualified children born out of void or voidable marriages for the consideration of compassionate appointments.
They relied on the fact that marriage between Gorakh Nath Pandey and Smt. Lachhmina Devi, being under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, was null and void as, at the time of this second marriage, his wife was alive. Accordingly, it was held that petitioner no. 2 stood disqualified to obtain the benefit of compassionate appointment. With such sensitisation, the petitioners proceeded aggrieved to the Calcutta High Court seeking quashing of the order of rejection and constitutional validity of the circular under challenge.
The petitioners claimed that the exclusion of children born out of void marriages was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. Further, it was claimed that the children cannot be made to suffer for the misdeeds of the parents, and the said exclusion goes against their rights as guaranteed by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which bestows legitimacy upon the children born out of a void or a voidable marriage for all intents and purposes except inheritance.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The petitioners, by their counsel, presented many arguments that propounded a case for them. They relied upon the grounds of arbitrariness, unreasonableness and unconstitutional character that the railway board circular in 1992 had accorded so as to disqualify the children from void marriage. It is in Article 14 of the Constitution where exclusion is held to be hostile discrimination. It was also stated that children cannot be held guilty of the circumstances of birth, and such a punishment would be violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
In support of this, the petitioners have relied on Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein it has been declared that children born from void or voidable marriages are declared to be legitimate except so far as regards inheritance. They urged that compassionate appointments are measures of welfare for assisting families whose breadwinner has died and that it would go against the very objective of the scheme if children were denied on grounds of birth status. The petitioners further emphasised that compassionate appointments are not governed by the principles of inheritance but rather by social welfare objectives, and Section 16 explicitly recognizes the legitimacy of such children for all purposes other than inheritance.
To strengthen their case, the petitioners relied on judicial precedents, such as the Supreme Court judgement in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, wherein the court ruled that children born out of void marriages cannot be denied benefits solely due to their birth status. The petitioners argued that compassionate appointments must be inclusive, ensuring financial relief to dependents without discrimination. They further added that the circular is against evolving jurisprudence as it upholds the rights of the children born under such circumstances
Contentions of the Respondents
The respondents, the Union of India and the Railway Board, argued to justify the rejection of the compassionate appointment claim by referring to the Railway Board Circular dated 2nd January 1992. It was argued that the circular clearly excludes children born from void or voidable marriages, and the authorities had acted in pursuance of the policy so evolved. It was the respondent's contention that the second marriage between Gorakh Nath Pandey and petitioner no. 1 was void on the ground of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, his first wife being alive at that time. Thus, a legitimate dependent, for availing compassionate appointment, as petitioner no. 2 could not be recognized at all.
The respondents emphasized that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general process of recruitment and are given strictly in accordance with the rules and policies in place. They argued that the exclusion under the policy is rational since it aligns with the societal norms and legal principles governing legitimate relationships. The respondents further argued that under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, legitimacy of children does not make them automatically eligible for employee benefits as compassionate appointments are subject to certain policies framed by the government.
To further fortify their argument, the respondents relied on judicial pronouncements, including the Supreme Court's observations in cases where compassionate appointments were deemed to be exceptions requiring strict compliance with the policy framework. They asserted that any relaxation of the rules would open the floodgates for claims, undermining the objective of compassionate appointments as a limited welfare measure.
Court's Analysis
The Calcutta High Court, under the able headship of Hon'ble Justice Chandra Kumar Rai, analyzed the submissions of both sides and weighed the merits of the case against the legal and constitutional soundness of the Railway Board Circular of 1992. It began by referring to the purpose of compassionate appointments, which is to afford immediate relief to the dependents of the deceased employee in distress of economic loss. The court recognised while compassionate appointments are not of right, yet the constitution must be implemented with how such appointments must be dispensed. It specifically relied upon Article 14 of this constitution.
The court examined Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, declaring children born from void and voidable marriages as lawfully begotten for all other purposes except inheritance. There it placed its reliance on a principle to ensure that these children should not be punished in respect of circumstances beyond their own control. The court came to an inference that deprivations of compassionate appointment to the children born in void marriages would result in hostile discrimination, violating the very rights available under Article 14.
The court then dealt with the reliance of the respondents on the Railway Board Circular by stating that the circular should also meet the test of constitutionality. It was further noted by the court that policies and circulars issued by the government authorities cannot supersede statutory provisions or constitutional mandates. The exclusion of children born from void marriages was found to be arbitrary and unreasonable, failing to recognize the legitimacy granted upon them by Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, this court observed that children born from void marriages cannot be disentitled to benefits just on account of their birth status. The court clearly brought out that compassionate appointment is an exercise for fulfilling the social welfare purpose, and disentitlement of a child born from a void marriage would defeat the very purpose of the scheme itself.
The court also considered the argument by the respondents about the strict application of policies related to compassionate appointments. Even though it accepted that such appointments are exceptions to the general process of recruitment, the court ruled that policies have to be followed in a manner that does not run against the principles of the Constitution. The court noted that any policy which discriminates against a segment of people without any rationale is likely to be declared invalid.
Conclusion
In the judgment, the Calcutta High Court struck down the order rejecting the compassionate appointment claim and declared the Railway Board Circular of 1992 as unconstitutional to the extent that it excludes children born from void marriages. The court held such exclusion violative of Article 14 of the Constitution since it amounts to hostile discrimination against children who are declared legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
This judgment reaffirmed the principle that children cannot be penalised for the circumstances of their birth, underlined the necessity of harmonizing policies regarding compassionate appointments with constitutional mandates and statutory provisions, and directed the railway authorities to reconsider the claim of petitioner no. 2 for compassionate appointment to ensure that the exclusionary provision in the circular is not a bar.
It becomes one of the landmark decisions while setting an important precedent in child's birth from void marriages in relation to its benefit rights not being denied on mere basis of their birth. It underscores that it is the judiciary's responsibility to uphold constitutional principles and promote social justice through welfare measures.
