Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 16 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
M. Muthuraj vs The Deputy General Of Police on 27 April, 2016
18. The High Court has proceeded on the basis that the
recognition of legitimacy in Section 16 is restricted only to the
property of the deceased and for no other purpose. The High
Court has missed the principle that Section 16(1) treats a child
born from a marriage which is null and void as legitimate.
Section 16(3), however, restricts the right of the child in
respect of property only to the property of the parents. Section
16(3), however, does not in any manner affect the principle
declared in sub-section (1) of Section 16 in regard to the
legitimacy of the child. Our attention has also been drawn to a
judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court
in M Muthuraj v Deputy General of Police, Tamil Nadu
adopting the same position. In the view which we have taken,
we have arrived at the conclusion that the exclusion of a child
born from a second marriage from seeking compassionate
appointment under the terms of the circular of the Railway
Board is ultra vires.
Union Of India vs M. Karumbayee on 18 September, 2017
A Division Bench of the Madras High
Court followed the view of the Calcutta High Court in Namita
Goldar in Union of India v M Karumbayee. A Special leave
petition filed against the judgment of the Division Bench was
dismissed by this Court on 18 September 2017.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Amending Act, 1897
Section 5 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Rameshwari Devi vs State Of Bihar And Others on 27 January, 2000
16. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that
the decision of this Court in Rameshwari Devi (supra) arose in
the context of the grant of family pension to the minor children
born from the second marriage of a deceased employee. That
is correct. This Court, in that context, observed 11 that Section
16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 renders the children of a
void marriage to be legitimate while upholding the entitlement
to family pension. The learned Additional Solicitor General
submitted that pension is a matter of right which accrues by
virtue of the long years of service which is rendered by the
employee, entitling the employee and after his death, their
family to pension in accordance with the rules. Even if we do
accept that submission, the principle which has been laid
down by this Court on the basis of Section 16 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 must find application in the present case
as well. The exclusion of one class of legitimate children from
seeking compassionate appointment merely on the ground
that the mother of the applicant was a plural wife of the
deceased employee would fail to meet the test of a
reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved. It
would be offensive to and defeat the whole object of ensuring
the dignity of the family of a deceased employee who has died
in harness. It brings about unconstitutional discrimination
between one class of legitimate beneficiaries - legitimate
children.