In Brief
The respondent, born from a second marriage of a deceased railway employee, was denied compassionate appointment. The Railway Board's circular excluded children of second marriages from such benefits unless the marriage had been administratively approved. The Supreme Court held that once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act recognizes such children as legitimate, denying them compassionate appointment violates Article 14. The Court reasoned that compassionate appointment aims to prevent destitution and that excluding legitimate children on this ground is arbitrary and disproportionate. Children cannot be penalized for their parents' actions. The appeals were dismissed and the railways directed to reconsider the application on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.