Railway Board circular denying passes to children born from void marriages struck down as discriminatory

The petitioner, a Central Railway employee, divorced his first wife in September 2014 and married his second wife in June 2016.

Three children were born to the petitioner and his second wife before their marriage: two while his first marriage was subsisting, and one after the divorce but before the second marriage.

The Railways permitted the second wife’s name to be entered in the service record but denied the children Railway passes and related benefits, relying on Railway Board Circular RBE No. 39/2005.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s application, and he challenged that decision, the Railways’ letter, and the circular before the High Court.

1. Whether the children could be denied Railway passes and related benefits because they were born before the petitioner’s marriage to their mother, including during the subsistence of his first marriage.

2. Whether Railway Board Circular RBE No. 39/2005, which excluded children born of void marriages from Railway passes, was legally sustainable.

Rule 2(d) of the Railway Servants (Pass) Rules, 1986 defines “family” to include specified dependent sons and daughters, and Rule 4 provides for passes to eligible family members; eligibility remains subject to the applicable criteria in those Rules.

Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deems children of marriages void under Section 11 legitimate, subject to the statutory scheme.

The Court relied on Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646, and Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 161, which held in the compassionate-appointment context that children cannot be excluded on grounds of their parents’ marital relationship or descent, consistently with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It also considered government memoranda recognising pensionary rights of children of void or voidable marriages.

The Court held that the Tribunal had focused on the petitioner’s alleged breach of Railway conduct rules, rather than deciding the children’s entitlement under the applicable benefits framework.

Reading the Pass Rules alongside Section 16 and the Supreme Court’s decisions, it found no lawful basis to exclude the first two children because they were born during the subsistence of the petitioner’s first marriage.

It likewise found no rationale to deny benefits to the third child, born after the divorce but before the second marriage.

The circular’s categorical exclusion of children born from void marriages was inconsistent with this legal position and could not be sustained.

It directed the Railways to consider the petitioner’s claim in accordance with law and the Court’s observations, within two months of receiving the certified order.