Cites Union of India vs. V. R. Tripathi, where a son born to a deceased employee from a second marriage is entitled for compassionate appointment.
Quashed the impugned order and directed the department to reconsider the compassionate appointment application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
18-WP-9871-2019
Pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed byPRAVIN PRAVIN DASHARATH DASHARATH PANDIT PANDIT Date: 2023.02.16 10:40:23 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 9871 OF 2019
Suresh Kitkul Patil & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Vicky A. Nagrani for petitioners. Mr. Abhijit Joshi for respondents.
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2023
P.C.:
1. The petitioner no.2 had filed an application for compassionate appointment in place of petitioner no.1 (now deceased). The deceased petitioner no.1 was medically De-categorized. The application of the petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground is rejected as he is the son of the second wife of the deceased petitioner no.1.
2. This Court under order dated 7th December, 2022 had directed respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to verify whether the signature of the petitioner no.1 matches with his other signatures in the official records in respect of the document intimating the department of he performing second marriage.
3. The additional affidavit is filed by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer of the respondents. In para 2 of the said affidavit, it is stated that on a bare visual comparison, without referring to a handwriting expert, the alleged signature prima facie
1
18-WP-9871-2019
appears to be similar to the other signature of the petitioner no.1 in the official records.
4. In light of that, it will have to be presumed that the deceased petitioner no.1 had intimated the department about his performing second marriage.
5. The son born from the second wife would be entitled to the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. V. R. Tripathi , reported in 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3097 has held that the marriage may be illegal but the son born from the said wed-lock would be entitled for the benefit.
6. In view of that, the impugned order passed by the department so also the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The respondents/department shall reconsider the application filed by the petitioner no.2 for appointment on compassionate ground. The department may consider whether upon medical De-categorization of deceased petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2 would be entitled to seek appointment on compassionate ground and may consider all other relevant factors and they shall not reject the application only on the ground that the petitioner no.2 is the son born to the deceased petitioner no.1 from the second wed-lock.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a son born to a deceased employee from a second marriage is entitled to compassionate appointment benefit if the employee was medically de-categorized.
Whether rejection of the compassionate appointment application solely on the ground of the deceased being deceased and the employee being from a second marriage is sustainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. V. R. TripathiRelied on¶20
Union of India vs. V. R. Tripathi, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 3097 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Kitkul Patil & Anr.
The General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai CST & Ors.
S. V. Gangapurwala
Sandeep V. Marne
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court