YOGESH S/O. KISHORE DANDEKAR v. ZILLA PARISHAD, WARDHA THR. ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, WARDHA
Compassionate Appointment - Children Born of Second Marriage are Legitimate Under Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Eligible for Employment Benefits.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-NAG:5746-DB
Decision Date: 08-04-2026
List of Laws
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Article 14 of the Constitution of India; Service Law - Compassionate Appointment; Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976
- Facts: The petitioner's father, a permanent driver with the Zilla Parishad, Wardha, died in service on March 23, 2003. At the time, the petitioner was four years old. Upon attaining majority in 2017, the petitioner applied for a compassionate appointment within one month. The respondent-Zilla Parishad rejected the application via a communication dated May 16, 2023. The rejection was based on the grounds that the petitioner’s mother was the second wife of the deceased and, since the second marriage was invalid under Hindu Law, the petitioner, being the son of the second wife, was ineligible for compassionate appointment.
- Procedural Posture: the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court seeking to quash the respondent's communication and requesting a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds.
- Issue: Can the claim for compassionate appointment by a child born out of a second marriage be rejected on the grounds of the child's legitimacy or the validity of the parents' marriage?
- Holding: No, the rejection was erroneous. A child born of a void or voidable marriage is deemed legitimate by law and cannot be denied the benefit of compassionate appointment.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi (2018), which interpreted Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Court reasoned that Section 16(1) provides a legal fiction of legitimacy to children born of null and void marriages to protect them from the social consequences of illegitimacy. As a matter of public policy and constitutional fairness under Article 14, once a child is deemed legitimate under Section 16, they cannot be discriminated against regarding compassionate appointment based on the marital status of their parents. The court found that the respondent's insistence on the validity of the marriage to determine the child's eligibility was legally unsustainable.
🔒 For Members Only