Hyderabad: Giving hope to the children of the second wife of deceased railway employees, the Hyderabad High Court has struck down orders of the Railway Board rejecting compassionate appointments to such wards in as many as five cases.
The court relied on the provision of the Hindu Marriages Act which states that even though the marriage with second wife is void if the first marriage is legally valid, the children of such marriage are legitimate.
While disposing of the five cases filed in 2011, 2013, 2015 and 2016 the High Court also relied on the judgement of the High Court of Allahabad in Kumari Preeti Gupta v State of Uttar Pradesh wherein it was held that children born out of second marriage, even though the deceased employee is a Hindu and has contracted a second wife during subsistence of his first marriage, shall be entitled for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment.
The Railway Board has claimed that the compassionate appointment scheme is envisaged for the employment only of the legitimate children of employees who died in harness, and not for children of the second wife.
While dismissing a batch of petitions filed by the Railway Board challenging the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in favour of the children of the second wife of deceased employees, the court directed the board to consider their cases.
The board told the court that it had issued circular (No. 5/92) on January 2, 1992 preventing the children of the second wife from being considered for app-ointment on compassionate grounds as per which the facility was available only for the first wife and her wards.
The court pointed out that the circular was quashed by the Calcutta High Court on February 10, 2010, to the extent that it prevents the children of the second wife from being considered for appointments on compassionate grounds. That order had not been challenged, the Hyderabad High Court said.
The court also pointed to the High Court of Patna ruling in Union of India and others v the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Patna HC had held that having split the pensionary benefit between the two wives, it failed to understand where the difficulty lay in providing a job under the rule of harness to the son of the second wife when the record showed that there was no rival and the first wife had given consent. This decision too had not been challenged, the Hyderabad High Court told the Railway Board.
