Compassionate Appointment Policy Cannot Discriminate Against Illegitimate Children Of Deceased Employee

Case: Mukesh Kumar vs Union of India

Coram: Justices UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha

Case No.: SLP(C) NO. 18571/2018

Court Observation: “This Court held that the scheme and the rules of compassionate appointment cannot violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 if the policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment. The circular creates two categories between one class, and it has no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. Once the law has deemed them legitimate, it would be impermissible to exclude them from being considered under the policy. Exclusion of one class of legitimate children would fail to meet the test of nexus with the object, and it would defeat the purpose of ensuring the dignity of the family of the deceased employee. This judgment has now been followed by a number of High Courts as well.”

While compassionate appointment is an exception to the constitutional guarantee under Article 16, a policy for compassionate appointment must be consistent with the mandate of Articles 14 and 16. That is to say, 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 by classifying children of the deceased employee as legitimate and illegitimate and recognizing only the right of legitimate descendant. Apart from the fact that strict scrutiny would reveal that the classification is suspect, as demonstrated by this Court in V.R. Tripathi, it will instantly fall foul of the constitutional prohibition of discrimination on the ground of descent. Such a policy is violative of Article 16(2).

Previous posts

Superannuation Does Not Absolve Employee From Misconduct; Bank Employee Always Holds Position Of Trust: Supreme Court

Specific Relief Act – Compensation In Lieu Of Specific Performance Can’t Be Granted Unless Specifically Claimed In Plaint: Supreme Court

Quasi-Judicial Authority Has To Disclose Material That Has Been Relied Upon At The Stage Of Adjudication: Supreme Court

Order II Rule 3 CPC Does Not Compel A Plaintiff To Join Two Or More Causes Of Action In A Single Suit: Supreme Court

Suo Motu Limitation Extension Orders Applicable To Filing Of Written Statements In Commercial Suits: Supreme Court

Motor Accident Compensation – Self-Employed Deceased Aged Below 40 Years Entitled To 40% Addition As Future Prospects: Supreme Court Download Judgement