Can't Deny Compassionate Appointment To Child Born From Second Wife Of A Deceased Employee: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has observed that a compassionate appointment cannot be denied to the child born from the second wife of the deceased employee. 

To arrive at the conclusion, the bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur relied upon the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 205 wherein it was observed that a compassionate appointment policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the ground of descent by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate.

In the instant case before the High Court, the deceased employee (Mohan Singh) died while serving the Irrigation Department of the state. He left behind two wives and a son from his second wife. His second wife (petitioner no. 1) filed an application seeking compassionate appointment as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1996.

However, her application was rejected on the ground that since she was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, therefore, she wouldn't be entitled to the appointment. She challenged that order before the High Court, however, during the pendency of the writ petition, she became overage, and thus, the writ petition was withdrawn while seeking the liberty to pursue the matter for compassionate appointment qua the son i.e. Jatin Singh (Petitioner No.2).

Thereafter, Jatin Singh's (Petitioner No.2) representation was also rejected by the irrigation department on the ground that being the son of the second wife, he was not entitled to the appointment on compassionate grounds.

In view of this, the instant plea came before the Court wherein the Court, at the outset, took note of the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Mukesh Kumar (supra) to stress that though the compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, however, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16.

Justice Mathur further opined that a policy for compassionate appointment, which has the force of law, must not discriminate on any of the grounds mentioned in Article 16(2), including that of descent.

"In this regard, descent must be understood to encompass the familial origins of a person. Familial origins include the validity of the marriage of the parents of a claimant of compassionate appointment and the claimant's legitimacy as their child," the Court added as it concluded that the consideration under the Rules of 1996 for the compassionate appointment cannot be denied to Petitioner No.2, on the ground of his being son of the second wife of the deceased employee.

Consequently, the respondents were directed to consider the case of petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment, in accordance with the Rules of 1996 for providing compassionate appointment to him, if he fulfills all other requirements within a period of 3 months.

Case title - Chandra Devi and another v. The State Of Rajasthan and others [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10865/2017]

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 243

Click Here To Read/Download Order