First Legally Wedded Wife’s Claim to Compassionate Appointment Holds Priority Over Claims of Second Wife's Children

The applicants (Applicant No. 1, second wife, and Applicant No. 2, son from the second marriage) sought to quash an order dated 11.04.2022 which rejected Applicant No. 2’s claim for compassionate appointment following the death of railway employee Devendra Kumar Singh on 23.11.2019.

Applicant No. 1 claimed that the deceased married her in 1992 with departmental permission after his first wife (Respondent No. 5) began living separately in 1991.

The deceased had nominated the applicants in official records.

However, Respondent No. 5 (the first/legally wedded wife) also sought compassionate appointment for her daughter, Nayanika Singh.

Relying on Railway Board circulars, the department prioritized the first wife's claim and subsequently appointed Nayanika Singh on 20.10.2022.

1. Whether the child of a second wife is entitled to priority in compassionate appointment over the child of the first (legally wedded) wife.

2. Whether the inclusion of the second wife's name in official records and family declarations confers the status of a "legally wedded wife" under Hindu Personal Law.

3. Whether the O.A. is maintainable without impleading the beneficiary of the impugned action (the appointed daughter).

The court applied RBE No. 218/2019, which modifies earlier circulars to allow children of a second wife to be considered for compassionate appointment but mandates that the legally wedded first wife’s claim for herself or her children takes priority over competing claims from the second wife’s family.

The court further applied Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which prohibits bigamy and renders a second marriage void if the first spouse is living and not legally divorced.

It also referenced Rule 75(6) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 regarding eligibility for benefits.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the Supreme Court in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (dismissing SLP(C) No. 32004/2016) protected the rights of children from second marriages, the administrative policy (RBE No. 218/2019) explicitly gives priority to the "legally wedded" first wife and her offspring.

The Tribunal found that neither the separation since 1991 nor the recording of the second wife's name in railway documents (Pass/Medical Card) conferred legal status upon the second marriage, as no decree of divorce existed to dissolve the first marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

Since Respondent No. 5 (the first wife) actively opted for her daughter’s appointment, the department correctly applied the seniority of claim established by the RBE.

Finally, the Tribunal noted a procedural defect: the applicants failed to implead Nayanika Singh, who had already been appointed and would be adversely affected by any order.

The Tribunal held the O.A. was "devoid of merit" and "barred by the principle of non-joinder of necessary party." The O.A. was dismissed, and the impugned order dated 11.04.2022 was upheld.