Compassionate appointment claims by children of second wives must be considered under updated RBE.

The applicant, Tanmay Kumar Mandal, is the son of Late Anil Kumar Mandal, a Railway employee who passed away on 26.01.2004 while in service.

Anil Kumar Mandal had two wives, Ms. Urmila Mandal (first wife, still alive) and Ms. Sephali Mandal (second wife), the latter being the applicant's mother.

After his father's death, Ms. Urmila Mondal was asked to obtain a succession certificate, which was granted on 05.04.2018 in favor of the legal heirs, including the applicant.

Pensionary benefits were subsequently released to the legal heirs.

The applicant sought compassionate appointment, highlighting his indigence and the fact that his father was an RPF Constable.

His representation was rejected by Respondent No. 02 on 17.12.2021, primarily on two grounds: a) the representation was made after 17 years, and b) under RBE No. 01/1992, children of a second wife were not entitled to compassionate appointment unless the administration permitted the second marriage.

The respondents also stated that the second marriage was void ab initio as it occurred without judicial separation or administrative permission.

Whether the rejection of the applicant's compassionate appointment based on RBE No. 01/1992, which disentitled children of a second wife, is lawful, given that this RBE was subsequently struck down by the Hon'ble High Court and new Railway Board circulars (RBE No. 218/2019 and RBE No. 08/2026) have clarified eligibility for such children.

Whether the applicant's request for compassionate appointment could be rejected solely on the ground of belated submission, given the subsequent clarifications from the Railway Board regarding delayed applications.

The court applied the principle that compassionate employment cannot be granted after an unreasonable period, as established in courts such as Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. Union of India 1994 SCC (4) 138.

The court applied the principle that compassionate employment cannot be granted after an unreasonable period, as established in courts such as Sanat Murmu v. UOI & ors in O.A. No. 350/00469/2025.

The court applied the principle that compassionate employment cannot be granted after an unreasonable period, as established in courts such as Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar (2009) 3 SCC 205.

The court considered the legal precedent set by Mukesh Kumar v. UOI & ors. in SLP (C) No. 18571 of 2018 and Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646, which held that denying compassionate appointment to children born from a second wife is discriminatory and violates Article 16(2) of the Constitution.

The court noted that RBE No. 01/1992, which earlier governed such appointments, was struck down.

RBE No. 01/1992 was superseded by RBE No. 218/2019 and further clarified by RBE No. 08/2026, which allow for the consideration of children of a second wife for compassionate appointment, even allowing for delayed applications.

RBE No. 08/2026 further clarified that RBE No. 218/2019 is effective from 11.12.2018.

The court recognized that the initial rejection of the applicant’s claim was based on two grounds: the applicant being the son of a second wife, and the belated submission of the application.

While acknowledging the general principle that compassionate appointments should not be granted after a significant lapse of time to address immediate financial crisis, the court highlighted that the legal landscape had evolved.

The original prohibitive rule, RBE No. 01/1992, was struck down, and the Railway Board itself issued RBE No. 218/2019 and RBE No. 08/2026.

These new circulars explicitly allow for the consideration of children born to a second wife for compassionate appointment, even if the second marriage was not specifically permitted, and also mandate consideration of applications received after 11.12.2018 regardless of when the cause of action arose.

Since the applicant applied for compassionate appointment in 2021, which is after 11.12.2018, the court determined that his case should be considered under the new rules.

The respondents' rejection of the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment based on RBE No. 01/1992 and the delay in application is not legally sound in light of the subsequent Railway Board circulars.

The O.A. was disposed of, and the respondents were directed to consider the applicant's claim as per RBE No. 218/2019 and communicate their decision within a period of four months from the receipt of the certified copy of the Order.

There shall be no order as to costs.