HC Rules Child of Void Marriage Eligible for Compassionate Appointment

Case Details: Kumari Manisha vs. State of U.P. [2026] 185 taxmann.com 995 (HC-Allahabad)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

J.J. Munir, J.
Shiv Raj Singh, Ram Pandey, Sunil Kumar & Sunil Kumar I for the Petitioner.
Jitendra Shanker Pandey, C.S.C. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner’s father, a Government Railway Police constable, died in harness. The petitioner, his daughter from a second marriage, applied for a compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules, claiming she had no source of income.

The deceased’s son made a rival claim from the first marriage, who was already employed. The Superintendent of Police rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding the second marriage void under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and concluding that a child born of such a void marriage was not entitled to consideration for compassionate appointment.

It was noted that once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act regards a child born from a marriage entered into while an earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, if a policy or rule excludes such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment.

Further, it was noted that, apart from discrimination ensuing from treating equals unequally, there is also discrimination on ground of descent, which is expressly prohibited under Article 16(2) of the Constitution.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the Head of Department or office faced with rival claims of petitioner and respondent No.3 had to regard both claims as maintainable and then judge suitability for appointment on merits in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Superintendent of Police was to be quashed, and a mandamus was to be issued to the Superintendent of Police to consider both claims, that is to say, the petitioner’s and that of respondent No.3, to compassionate appointment in accordance with Rule 7 of the Rules.