In Brief
A deceased railway technician had contracted a second marriage during his first marriage and fathered a child. On the employee's death in service, his son applied for compassionate appointment but was rejected by railway authorities under a 1992 circular that barred children born of bigamous second marriages from such benefits. The Supreme Court held that while compassionate appointment is not a right but a welfare scheme, denying it to children declared legitimate under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act violates Article 14 (equal protection). The circular is arbitrary and ultra vires. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the application on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.