Children born from void marriages are eligible for compassionate appointment as legitimate heirs under personal law.

The applicant’s father, T. Chelladurai, a Fitter Helper in Southern Railway, died in harness on 12.09.2011

The deceased had two wives; the applicant is the son of the second wife, Saroja

While the first wife and her children received terminal benefits, they did not initially apply for compassionate appointment due to illiteracy

A Succession Certificate issued on 14.10.2019 by the Subordinate Civil Court, Trichy, declared the applicant a legal heir but noted the second marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act

Upon attaining majority, the applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 08.07.2022

The respondent rejected the application via an impugned order dated 11.01.2023, relying on Railway Board Circular RBE No. 1/1992, which excludes children of a second wife from such appointments unless the administration had permitted the second marriage

Subsequently, the first wife and her son filed a belated competing claim in July 2023

1. Whether children born of a second/void marriage are eligible for compassionate ground appointment in the Railways

2. Whether the restrictive conditions in Railway Board Circular RBE No. 1/1992 and its subsequent iterations are constitutionally valid under Article 14

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which confers legitimacy upon children born of void or voidable marriages

The court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (AIR 2019 SC 666), which established that excluding legitimate children of a second marriage from compassionate appointment is discriminatory and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution

It further cited Namita Goldar v. Union of India (2010), where the Calcutta High Court quashed RBE No. 1/1992 for being inconsistent with the statutory legitimacy granted to such children

The Tribunal reasoned that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to prevent destitution and penury in the family of a deceased employee

By operation of Section 16(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the applicant is a legitimate child regardless of the validity of his parents' marriage

The court observed that the Railway Board's circulars created an impermissible classification between two sets of legitimate children (those from the first marriage vs. those from the second), which lacks a reasonable nexus to the objective of the scheme

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in V.R. Tripathi had explicitly held that such exclusion is offensive to human dignity and constitutional guarantees against discrimination

The Tribunal found the competing claim by the first wife’s son to be mala fide and "highly belated," intended only to frustrate the applicant's legitimate claim after he had successfully litigated for consideration

It held that the applicant cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment solely on the ground of being born to a second wife

The Respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s claim afresh in light of the V.R. Tripathi judgment within a period of two months

The Original Application was disposed of in favor of the applicant with no order as to costs