Children of deceased railway employees through second wives are entitled to compassionate appointment, irrespective of legitimacy.

The applicants are the widow (Applicant No. 1) and son (Applicant No. 2) of Late Ram Sanehi, a permanent employee of the Banaras Locomotive Works who died in harness on April 15, 2013

The deceased was previously married to one Satyabhama, who allegedly divorced him via village Panchayat in 1983; he subsequently married Applicant No. 1 in 1988

Applicant No. 1’s name was endorsed in service records, and she received settlement dues and a family pension after obtaining a civil court decree in 2021 validating her status as the legal wife

However, the respondents rejected the application for the compassionate appointment of Applicant No. 2 via orders dated August 24, 2022, and September 28, 2022. The rejection was based on two grounds: (i) Applicant No. 2 is the son of a second wife, and (ii) a Railway Board Circular dated July 29, 2022, restricted such benefits to cases where the employee died on or after December 30, 2019

1. Whether the son of a second wife is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate grounds

2. Whether the restrictive cut-off date (December 30, 2019) introduced by the Railway Board Circular is legally sustainable in light of judicial precedents

The court primarily applied the constitutional mandate of Articles 14 and 16, specifically prohibiting discrimination on the ground of "descent"

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Mukesh Kumar and another v. The Union of India and others (2022), which held that the legitimacy of a child or the status of the mother as a second wife cannot be a ground for denial of public employment

Furthermore, it cited Namita Goldar v. Union of India (2010), where the Calcutta High Court quashed Railway Board circulars that excluded children of second wives from compassionate appointment

Railway Board Circular RBE No. 218/2019

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents' primary objection—that Applicant No. 2 was the son of a second wife—is legally untenable following the Supreme Court’s clarification that "descent" includes familial origins and that a policy cannot discriminate against "illegitimate" children

The court noted that the respondents' reliance on a 2022 Circular to apply a cut-off date (December 30, 2019) for the death of the employee was arbitrary, as the underlying legal right for such children to be considered had already been established by the judiciary regardless of the internal circular's timeline

The Tribunal found that since the applicant’s status as a family member was recognized for pension and settlement dues, the denial of compassionate appointment solely based on the mother’s status as a second wife violated Article 16(2) of the Constitution

The Tribunal directed the competent authority to reconsider Applicant No. 2’s case for appointment afresh in the next meeting, in accordance with the rules but without relying on the grounds previously used for rejection. The final order must be a reasoned, speaking order communicated to the applicants within one week of its passing