9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Entitlement to compassionate appointment under U.P. State Electricity Board Appointment of Dependents of Employees of Board (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1975. 2. Legitimacy of child born out of a void marriage. 3. Interpretation of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 4. Validity of compassionate appointment based on a settlement between the widow and the second wife. 5. Impact of a void marriage on the definition of 'family' under the Rules of 1975. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the entitlement to compassionate appointment under the U.P. State Electricity Board Rules, 1975. The petitioner, born out of a second marriage that was deemed void under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, sought compassionate appointment following the death of the employee. The petitioner argued that under Section 16 of the Act, a child born out of a void marriage is legitimate. However, the Corporation contended that compassionate appointment cannot be granted based on a settlement between the widow and the second wife, as the second marriage was void. The Corporation emphasized that the objective of compassionate appointment is to support the legally wedded family of the deceased employee. The Court examined the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which deal with the legitimacy of children born out of void or voidable marriages. While acknowledging the legitimacy of such children, the Court highlighted that their rights to property of any person other than their parents are restricted. The Court emphasized that the right to compassionate appointment is a statutory right of the deceased employee's family and does not extend to children born out of void marriages who cannot claim rights to the deceased's property. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the permission granted by the competent authority for the second marriage did not confer legal status to the void marriage. The Court emphasized that rights under statutory rules cannot be altered by settlements or compromises between the parties involved. Therefore, the settlement between the widow and the second wife was deemed void and could not form the basis for a claim for compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner, born out of a void marriage, was not entitled to the reliefs sought. The judgment underscored the importance of upholding the statutory provisions and the definition of 'family' under the Rules of 1975, which exclude children born out of void marriages from the scope of compassionate appointment.
|
