Dismissed

Union of India, v. S. Vennila

Madras HC12 Sept 2016WP/36158/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order granting compassionate ground appointment to the son of the second wife of a deceased employee. The High Court held that under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the child is legitimate and entitled to the appointment, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed with costs; the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is confirmed.

Union of India, Vs S. Vennila — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Reserved on Delivered on 26.08.2016 12.09.2016

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶6

W.P.No.36158 of 2015
& M.P.No.1 of 2015
1. Union of India
rep.by the General Manager
Southern Railway
Madurai
2. The Divisional Railway Manager
Chennai Office
Head Office, Southern Railway
Madurai
3. The Chief Personnel Officer
Chennai Division
Head Office, Southern Railway
Madurai .. Petitioners
Vs.
1 S.Vennila
2 The Registrar
The Central Administrative Tribunal
Chennai Bench,
High Court complex
Chennai. .. Respondents

¶7

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in order dated 13.7.2015 made in O.A.No.310/00281/2014 and O.A.No.866 of 2013 as far as Original Application No.281 of 2014 and quash the same.

¶8

For Petitioner: Mrs.V.Bhavani Subbaroyan For Respondents: Mr.R.Singaravelan, Senior counsel for Mrs.M.Srividhya for R1 R2 - Tribunal

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

ORDER

¶11

(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.)

¶12

This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 13.7.2015 passed in Original Application No.281 of 2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and quash the same.

¶13

The first respondent, as applicant, has filed Original Application No.281 of 2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, wherein the present writ petitioners have been shown as respondents.

¶14

In O.A.No.281 of2014, it is averred that the applicant is the second wife of the deceased L.Somu, who served as Senior Trackman in Southern Railway and he passed away in harness in the year 2005. During his lifetime, he married the applicant with the consent of his first wife, since she has not begotten any issue. The first wife has passed away in the year 2012. The applicant is now getting family pension. Further, she received all benefits. As per section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the children of the applicant have become legitimate. Therefore, the applicant has sent an application to get an appointment on compassionate ground to her son by name S.Anand and the same has been rejected by the third respondent. Under the said circumstances, the present Original Application has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

¶15

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, after considering the rival contentions raised on either side, has allowed the Original Application No.281 of 2014 and quashed the order dated 24.1.2014 passed by the third respondent and also given necessary direction to provide employment on compassionate ground to the son of the applicant, by way of passing the impugned order and the same is being challenged in the present Writ Petition.

¶16

On the side of the first respondent, a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been clinchingly stated that in various proceedings, this Court as well as the Supreme Court have held that the children born through the second wife are also entitled to get appointment on compassionate ground and ultimately prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents has repeatedly contended that during subsistence of first marriage, the employee L.Somu has married the applicant. Under the said circumstances, the children born

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

through her are not legitimate and also not entitled to get any appointment on compassionate ground and the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, without considering the contentions raised on the side of the writ petitioners/respondents, has erroneously allowed the Original Application No.281 of 2014 and therefore, the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, is liable to be quashed.

¶20

Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/applicant has befittingly contended that even though the first respondent/applicant is the second wife of the concerned employee, as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, her children have become legitimate and they are entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:

¶22

i. Union of India vs. Umadevi - Bombay High Court judgment dated 22.4.2010 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2592 of 2007

¶23

ii.Union of India through Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway vs. Basanti Devi and another - Jharkand High Court judgment dated 13.4.2011 in W.P.(S) No.4461 of 2008

¶24

iii.M.V.V.Prakash vs. Union of India and others - Jharkhand High Court judgment dated 24.7.2014 in W.P.(S) No.16 of 2014 iv.Union of India through its General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai 400 001 vs. Shri Pradeep Uttam Gid - Bombay High Court Judgment, Nagpur Bench, dated 31.7.2015 in W.P.No.3374 of 2014.

¶25

Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent/applicant has also relied upon the various decisions and this Court is bound to follow the following decisions:

¶26

(a) In (2000) 2 SCC 431, (Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the similar issue and ultimately found that even though the second marriage itself is void, the child born through the second wife is entitled to get family pension.

¶27

(b) In 2005 (3) CTC 733, (Sivaraman @ Harikrishnan vs. Rajeswari @ Shanthi, this Court has held that as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the children born through void or voidable marriage, have become legitimate and they are having right over the properties of their parents.

¶28

(c)In Writ Petition No.1712 of 2011 (The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai and the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Divisional

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

Manager's office, Personnel Branch, Chennai Division, Park Town, Chennai vs. the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and Motimi Venkateswaralu) by order dated 7.2.2013, the Division Bench of this Court has held that the son born through second wife is entitled to get compassionate appointment.

¶31

In the instant case, admittedly, the first respondent/applicant is none other than the second wife of the deceased L.Somu. The third writ petitioner has rejected the claim of the first respondent mainly on the ground that she is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased L.Somu. It is a settled principle of law that as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the children born through second marriage have become legitimate. Under the said circumstances, the son of the first respondent/applicant is legally entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground.

¶32

The Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions raised on either side, has rightly allowed the claim of the first respondent/applicant and in view of the discussions made earlier, this Court has not found any force in the contentions made on the side of the petitioners and therefore, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

In fine, this Writ Petition is dismissed with cost. The impugned order dated 13.7.2015 passed in Original Application No.281 of 2014 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench is confirmed. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶34

MEMORANDUM OF COSTS W.P.NO.36158 OF 2015

¶35

Translation and Printing/ Tyeing Charges .. Nil Stamp for Vakalatnama .. 10.00

¶36

_________..10.00

¶37

The petitioner do pay a sum of _________ Rs.10/-(Rupees ten only to the respondent herein

¶38

Sd/Assistant Registrar(V) //True Copy//

¶39

Sub Assistant Registrar