MUKESH KUMAR & ANR versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 644 · Decided: 24-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
644
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 644
644
MUKESH KUMAR & ANR
v.
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1620 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 24, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.16(2) – Condition imposed by the
Railway Board circular that compassionate appointment cannot be
granted to children born from the second wife of a deceased
employee – Held: Is not sustainable – Denial to grant compassionate
appointment only on the ground of descent under Art.16(2) amounts
to discrimination.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 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. 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 policy cannot discriminate against a person only on the
ground 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). As appellant
No.1, cannot be denied consideration under the scheme of
compassionate appointments only because he is the son of the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
645
second wife, there shall be a direction to consider his case as per
the extant policy. The Authorities shall be entitled to scrutinize
whether the application for compassionate appointment fulfils all
other requirements in accordance with the law. [Paras 9, 11]
[651-A-D; 652-C-D]
Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (2019) 14 SCC 646 :
[2018] 13 SCR 281; K. Santhosha v. Karnataka Power
Transmission Corp Ltd. 2022(1) Kant LJ 154 (Decided
on 24.06.2021 by The High Court of Karnataka);
Yuvraj Dajee Khadake v. Union of India: 2019 SCC
OnLine Bom 299 (Decided on 21.02.2019 by The
High Court of Bombay); Union of India v Rohit Chand
2020 SCC OnLine Del 157 (Decided on 24.01.2020
by The High Court of Delhi); V. Sivamurthy v. State of
A.P. and Ors., (2008) 13 SCC 730 : [2008] 11 SCR
1201; Director General of Posts v. K. Chandrashekar
Rao, (2013) 3 SCC 310 : [2012] 12 SCR 795; State of
Haryana v. Ankur Gupta (2003) 7 SCC 704 : [2003] 3
Suppl. SCR 333; Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India
(1987) 1 SCC 631: [1987] 2 SCR 49; Gazula
Dasaratha Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh and
Ors. [1961] 2 SCR 931– relied on.
Namita Goldar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
(2010) 1 Cal. LJ 464 – approved.4 Union of India v.
Pankaj Kumar Sharma MANU/DE/3959/2014, WP(C)
No.9008/2014 dt 19.04.2014 – approved.
Case Law Reference
[2018] 13 SCR 281
relied on
Para 2
[2008] 11 SCR 1201
relied on
Para 8
[2012] 12 SCR 795
relied on
Para 8
[2003] 3 Suppl. SCR 333
relied on
Para 8
[1987] 2 SCR 49
relied on
Para 8
[1961] 2 SCR 931
relied on
Para 9
MUKESH KUMAR & ANR v. THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1620
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18153 of 2017.
Manish Kumar Saran, Satya Prakash Sharan, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Ms. Meera Patel, B. K. Satija, Ms. Seema Bengani, Ms. Vaishali
Verma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The short issue arising for consideration, in this case, is whether
the condition imposed by the Railway Board circular that compassionate
appointment cannot be granted to children born from the second wife of
a deceased employee is legally sustainable. Having considered the matter,
we have agreed with the counsel for the appellant that the issue is covered
by the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi.1 We
have allowed the appeal on t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.