The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is "reprehensible" to discriminate against individuals born from a void marriage when considering compassionate employment, emphasizing that the source of a child's birth should not be a factor in such decisions.

Justice Ananya Bandopadhyay held: "The objective to grant compassionate appointment to redress financial constraints occasioned in a family in the event of the death of the bread earner ensures a means of sufficiency to assuage abrupt crisis and indigence, which cannot be refused ambiguously and unjustifiably on the basis of a circular that is unequivocally unconstitutional to judge a child's entitlement to an appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of its descent."

The Court was hearing a petition challenging the denial of compassionate employment to the younger son of a deceased railway employee, who was born to his second wife. It was noted that neither the elder son nor the first wife objected to the second son's appointment on compassionate grounds.

However, the appointment was rejected based on a circular dated 02.01.1992. Justice Bandopadhyay, however, observed that the circular under which the compassionate employment was denied had been struck down by a division bench of the Supreme Court in Namita Goldar v Union of India [2010 SCC OnLine (Cal) 266].

Therefore, the Court held that the younger son (petitioner no. 2) would be entitled to compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father, irrespective of the legitimacy of his parents' marriage.

Accordingly, the plea was allowed.

Case: Smt. Lachhmina Devi & Anr. -Vs- Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WPA 24082 of 2013