Children of a second marriage are entitled to compassionate appointment regardless of the marriage's validity.

The applicant is the son of Late Sushil Kumar Barua, a permanent employee of the North Central Railway who died in harness on August 29, 2012

The applicant’s mother (the first wife, Deepa Barua) had eloped, leading the deceased employee to obtain a decree of separate living in 1996 and subsequently marry Sangeeta Barua (the second wife)

The applicant applied for compassionate appointment in 2015, but his claim was rejected by the respondents on June 11, 2019

The rejection was based on Railway Board Circular RBE No. 01/1992, which stipulated that children of a second wife are ineligible for compassionate appointment unless the second marriage was permitted by the administration under special circumstances

1. Whether the applicant's request for compassionate appointment was rejected in accordance with the relevant statutory rules and judicial precedents

2. Whether the child of a second wife is legally entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment despite internal restrictive circulars

The Court primarily applied Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, which confers legitimacy upon children of void or voidable marriages

It relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (AIR 2019 SC 666) and Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205), which established that "descent" or the status of a mother as a second wife cannot be a ground for denying public employment

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 01/1992 had been quashed by the Calcutta High Court in Namita Goldar v. Union of India (2010) to the extent it excluded children of a second wife

The Court also referenced Railway Board RBE No. 218/2019, which updated the policy to include children of the second wife for compassionate grounds

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ reliance on the 1992 Circular was legally untenable because the specific prohibitive clause had already been quashed by the judiciary

The Court reasoned that under Article 16(2) of the Constitution, the State cannot discriminate against a person based on "descent," which includes familial origins and the legitimacy of the parents' marriage

Citing Mukesh Kumar, the Court observed that children of a second wife often suffer social disadvantages and denying them employment based on their birth is unconstitutional

Since the deceased’s retiral benefits had already been divided between both wives by a previous court order, and RBE No. 218/2019 now expressly permits such appointments, the Tribunal determined that the ground for rejection—being the son of a second wife—was arbitrary and illegal

It held that the applicant cannot be denied consideration for compassionate appointment solely because he is the son of the second wife

The respondents are directed to re-consider the applicant's case afresh in light of the judicial pronouncements and current policies during the next departmental meeting for compassionate appointments. The final decision must be communicated via a reasoned and speaking order within one week of its passing