Case at a glance: The Bombay High Court has set aside a Railway Board circular stating that children born out of void marriages are not eligible for railway passes, and quashed the CAT order upholding it. Relying on Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, the Division Bench held that the law does not discriminate against children born of void marriages, and that “children are children”.
The petitioner, a Trackman with Central Railway, married his first wife in 2004; the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent in 2014. He married Jyoti in 2016, and three children had been born to them before that marriage—in 2009, 2012 and February 2016. In July 2016 he asked to add Jyoti and the children to his Service Register for passes, medical facilities and nominations.
A letter of 2 May 2017 accepted Jyoti but described the children as illegitimate and denied them railway passes, relying on Railway Board Circular RBE 39/2005. The CAT, Mumbai dismissed his original application in 2018, holding that passes are not “property” and the exclusion was a reasonable classification.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Railways deny passes and other benefits to an employee's children on the ground that they were born of a void marriage?
Section 16 HMA and Article 14
The Court relied on V.R. Tripathi (“Children do not choose their parents”; Section 16(3) HMA does not dilute Section 16(1)) and Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India (a policy cannot discriminate only on the ground of descent). It held that “the law does not envisage any distinction, let alone any discrimination qua children born out of void marriages” and that the labels of illegitimacy are not what the law prescribes.
The first two children, born during the subsistence of the first marriage, were held entitled. For the third child, born after the divorce but before the remarriage, the Court found “no rationale, much less legal embargo” to deny benefits, and held that denial would violate Article 14.
What the Court Actually Held
- The writ petition was allowed and the CAT order of 9 October 2018 quashed.
- The Railway Board circular of 10 March 2005 was set aside as unsustainable in law.
- The letter of 2 May 2017 was set aside to the extent it denied the children passes and benefits.
- The respondents must consider the petitioner's claim within two months of the certified copy.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It extends V.R. Tripathi to railway pass and medical benefits.
- It strikes down a long-standing Railway Board circular.
- It protects children born outside a valid marriage from service-rule discrimination.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees
- Challenge benefit denials based on the child's birth status under Section 16 HMA and Article 14.
- Rely on V.R. Tripathi and Mukesh Kumar.
For Departments
- Review policies that distinguish between children by the validity of the parents' marriage.
Key Takeaways
- Children of void marriages cannot be denied railway passes.
- RBE 39/2005 was set aside.
- Section 16 HMA protects such children.
- Denial violated Article 14.
Frequently Asked Questions
Railway Board Circular RBE 39/2005 (dated 10 March 2005), which made children of void marriages ineligible for passes.
The Court found no rationale or legal bar to deny that child benefits.
It decided on Section 16 HMA, Article 14 and Supreme Court precedent.
Conclusion
The judgment brings railway benefit rules in line with the settled principle that children are not to be penalised for their parents' marriage.
Practical takeaway: Benefit schemes that exclude children of void marriages are open to challenge after this ruling.