2013 (9) TMI 73 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Rules Hindu Marriage Act Doesn't Apply to Coal Wage Scheme

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Versus Dilip Singh & Ors.

The court ruled that the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, do not apply to the scheme for compassionate appointments under the ... Scope of the Expression “Son” - Whether the expression “son” as contained in the category of dependants in Clause 9.3.3 of Chapter X of NCWA [e National Coal Wage Agreement] would include an illegitimate son born out of second marriage of a deceased employee - Held that:- The general expression “son” was occurring in conjunction to the qualified expression “legally adopted son” - the former would take a restricted meaning of legitimacy and not a wider meaning - the expression “son” in the category of “dependants” in the aforesaid scheme would not include illegitimate son born out of the second wedlock of a deceased employee. Section 16 (1) of the aforesaid Act creates a legal fiction whereby a child born out of void marriage shall be held to be legitimate. Section 16 (3) of the said act restricts such legal presumption to the rights of such a child only to the property of his parents and none else - Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 presumes a child born out of a void marriage as legitimate only for the purpose of entitling him to claim rights in or to the property of his parents but not to any other thing - Public post was not a heritable property - In fact it was an exception to the rule of regular appointment by open competition - Such exception to the rule of regular appointment was therefore a privilege extended by the employer in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment itself - It was not a property of the deceased nor was it a heritable right. Ramesh Chand Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division – II, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Allahabad and others [2003 (10) TMI 609 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] had rightly interpreted the restricted import of the legal presumption in Section 16 of the Act and rejected its applicability to matters relating to compassionate appointment - Right to compassionate appointment was an exception to the general rule of recruitment by public competition - Such privilege therefore was to be strictly construed according to the terms and conditions of the scheme and the same cannot be rewritten by the Courts. Wherever the legislature wanted to extend any right or privilege to illegitimate children, it expressly provided for the same - The scheme for compassionate appointment had not expressly provided such privilege to illegitimate children born out of a void marriage - When the employer in its wisdom had not extended such privilege to an illegitimate son born out of a void marriage, such privilege cannot be imported by resorting to other statutory instruments which have no manner of application to the matter of compassionate appointment of a deceased employee. A bare reading of clause 9.3.3 which defines dependants would show that the word “son” was accompanied by the words “legally adopted son” - It was settled law that the meaning of a word was to be judged by the company it keeps - When two or more words which were susceptible of analogous meaning were coupled together, they were understood to be used in their cognate sense - They take as it were their colour from each other that was the more general was restricted to a sense analogous to a less general - Appeal Allowed. Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment.2. Interpretation of the term 'son' in Clause 9.3.3 of the National Coal Wage Agreement (NCWA).3. Applicability of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to the compassionate appointment scheme.4. Comparison with other legal precedents and judgments.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the Petitioner's Claim for Compassionate Appointment:The petitioner, an illegitimate son born out of the second marriage of the deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment after the death of his father, Mithu Singh, an employee of Eastern Coalfields Ltd. The application was initially considered but subsequently rejected by the Deputy CME/Agent, Kumardhobi Colliery, on the grounds of the petitioner's illegitimacy.2. Interpretation of the Term 'Son' in Clause 9.3.3 of NCWA:Clause 9.3.3 of Chapter IX of the NCWA defines 'dependants' eligible for compassionate appointments as including the wife/husband, unmarried daughter, son, and legally adopted son of the deceased employee. The learned Single Judge interpreted the term 'son' to include an illegitimate son born out of a second marriage, referencing Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which legitimizes children born out of void marriages for the purpose of inheritance.3. Applicability of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, creates a legal fiction whereby children born out of void marriages are considered legitimate for the purpose of inheriting their parents' property. However, Section 16(3) restricts this legitimacy to the property of the parents and not to other rights or privileges. The court held that public posts and the right to compassionate appointment are not heritable properties and thus do not fall under the purview of Section 16. Compassionate appointment is a privilege extended by the employer to help the dependants of the deceased employee overcome financial hardship and is not a heritable right.4. Comparison with Other Legal Precedents and Judgments:The court examined various precedents, including:- State Bank Of India and Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571: The Supreme Court held that public posts are not heritable properties.- State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. Vs. Dhirjo Kumar Snegar (2009) 13 SCC 600: The court reiterated that compassionate appointments are exceptions to the general rule of recruitment through open competition.- Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (2000) 2 SCC 431: The Supreme Court upheld that illegitimate children were entitled to share in the family pension and gratuity, but this was distinguished from compassionate appointments, which are not heritable rights.- Geetha Ramani Vs. District Educational Officer, Kancheepuram (2005 LAB I.C. 386): The Madras High Court extended the provisions of Section 16 to compassionate appointments, but this was not agreed upon by the Calcutta High Court.- Ramesh Chand Vs. Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division - II, U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., Allahabad and others (2004 (100) FLR 111): The Allahabad High Court correctly interpreted the limited scope of Section 16 and rejected its applicability to compassionate appointments.The court concluded that the term 'son' in Clause 9.3.3 should be interpreted in conjunction with 'legally adopted son,' implying legitimacy. Therefore, the expression 'son' does not include an illegitimate son born out of a second marriage.Conclusion:The court set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, ruling that the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, do not apply to the scheme for compassionate appointments under NCWA. The appeal was allowed, and the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. There was no order as to costs.