Children of second marriages are eligible for compassionate appointment despite service record omissions or prolonged delays.

The applicant’s father, a Khalasi in Northern Railway, died in harness on August 12, 1991.

The applicant, a son from the deceased’s second marriage, was a minor at the time.

His mother’s 2016 representation for compassionate appointment was rejected in 2017 because he was the son of a second wife.

Following multiple rounds of litigation (OA 286/2017 and OA 332/2018), the Tribunal repeatedly directed the respondents to reconsider the claim in light of evolving law, specifically Union of India Anr v. V.R. Tripathi (2019) and Railway Board Circular RBE No. 218/2019.

Despite these directions, the respondents issued impugned orders dated August 21, 2021, and July 9, 2024, rejecting the claim on three grounds: (1) the second wife and children were not mentioned in service records; (2) RBE No. 218/2019 applies prospectively from December 11, 2018; and (3) the case was too old (33 years since the employee’s death).

1. Whether the absence of the applicant's name in the deceased employee's service records justifies the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim.

2. Whether the benefit of the ratio in V.R. Tripathi and RBE No. 218/2019 can be denied to the applicant on the ground of prospective applicability or a specific cut-off date.

3. Whether a claim for compassionate appointment can be rejected solely due to a long lapse of time when the applicant was a minor at the time of death and has been diligently litigating the matter.

The court primarily relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India Anr v. V.R. Tripathi (2019), which established that children from a second marriage are legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and cannot be excluded from compassionate appointment schemes, as such exclusion violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court also applied RBE No. 218/2019, which permits consideration of children born to a second wife even without prior administrative permission for the marriage.

Furthermore, the court invoked the principle from Kanishk Sinha Anr vs State of West Bengal Anr (2025), stating that judicial pronouncements operate retrospectively unless the judgment specifically stipulates prospective application.

Finally, it cited The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise Customs v. Prabhat Singh (2011) to hold that delay by the employer or diligent litigation by the applicant prevents rejection based on "lapse of time".

The Tribunal dismantled the respondents' three grounds for rejection.

First, it held that the legitimacy of the child—not the entry in service records—is the deciding factor; since the applicant's paternity was not disputed, the lack of record-entry was irrelevant.

Second, regarding the cut-off date, the Tribunal observed that V.R. Tripathi did not specify prospective operation; therefore, under the law established in Kanishk Sinha, the judgment (and RBE No. 218/2019) must apply retrospectively to the applicant's pending claim.

Third, the Tribunal rejected the "delay" argument, noting the applicant was a minor at the time of death, the law regarding second-wife children only matured recently, and the applicant had not been "indolent" but had consistently pursued his rights through multiple litigations.

The court concluded that the purpose of compassionate appointment—preventing destitution—should not be defeated by unsustainable technicalities.

It held that the grounds for rejection—lack of service records, prospective application of RBE No. 218/2019, and the age of the case—were unsustainable in law.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant’s case for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months of receiving the order.

No costs were awarded.