Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India General Manager
In short. The case revolves around the issue of whether a circular from the Railway Board, which denies compassionate appointments to children born from a deceased employee's second wife, is legally sustainable. The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the appellants, Mukesh Kumar and his stepmother, Gayatri Devi, stating that the denial of compassionate appointment based solely on descent is discriminatory under Article 16(2) of the Constitution. The court referenced its previous judgment in *Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi* to support its decision.
Facts
Jagdish Harijan, an employee of the Indian Railways, had two wives: Gayatri Devi (first wife) and Konika Devi (second wife). Mukesh Kumar, the appellant, is the son of Konika Devi. After Jagdish's death in service on February 24, 2014, Gayatri Devi sought a compassionate appointment for Mukesh. The Railway Board rejected this request, citing the circular that disallowed such appointments for children of a second wife. Subsequent appeals to the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court of Patna were unsuccessful, leading to the current appeal to the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Petitioner Arguments
The appellants argued that the Railway Board's circular was discriminatory and unconstitutional, relying on the precedent set in , which stated that children of a second wife should not be denied compassionate appointments solely based on their parentage. They also referenced the Calcutta High Court's decision in , which had previously quashed the same circular.
Respondent Arguments
The respondents, represented by Smt. Meera Patel, contended that the circular was valid and cited a subsequent circular from 2018, which stated that if a legally wedded widow does not wish to be considered for compassionate appointment, she cannot nominate her husband's illegitimate children. They argued that the earlier judgment did not mandate appointments but only required consideration of applications.
Precedents considered
The court primarily cited (2019) and (2010). In , the court ruled against the discriminatory practice of denying compassionate appointments based on the marital status of the deceased employee's spouse. The case similarly addressed the validity of the Railway Board's circular, leading to its quashing.
Legal principles
The court considered the principle of non-discrimination under Article 16(2) of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of descent. The court emphasized that denying compassionate appointments based on the marital status of the deceased employee's spouse is a violation of this principle.
Decision and reasoning
Rationale
The court reasoned that the Railway Board's circular was discriminatory and not legally sustainable. It highlighted that the denial of compassionate appointments based on descent is contrary to constitutional guarantees of equality. The court also noted that the arguments presented by the respondents did not sufficiently justify the continued enforcement of the circular.
Outcome
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the condition imposed by the Railway Board was unconstitutional. The court ordered that Mukesh Kumar should be considered for compassionate appointment without discrimination based on his parentage. Specific instructions regarding the implementation of this decision were not detailed in the provided text.
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the principle of equality and non-discrimination in employment practices, particularly concerning compassionate appointments. It underscores the importance of recognizing the rights of children born from second marriages, aligning with broader constitutional values.
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)
Find the judgments that followed or distinguished it, with the paragraph relied on in each. Two answers free on WhatsApp, no signup.