The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a woman married to a deceased employee during the subsistence of his first marriage is entitled to compassionate appointment if she was nominated in service records and dependent on him, even if the earlier marriage was not formally dissolved by a court decree.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa in CWP No. 19578 of 2023 (O&M): Kirandeep Kaur and others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others.
Background
Petitioner No.1, Kirandeep Kaur, filed the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment on account of the death of her husband Tirath Singh, who was employed as an Assistant Lineman with the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) and died on 26 February 2022 while in service. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are her minor daughters.
Tirath Singh was earlier married to one Baljinder Kaur in 2006. He claimed to have obtained a Panchayati divorce from her in 2007. Thereafter, Baljinder Kaur married another person and began residing separately. Tirath Singh married petitioner Kirandeep Kaur on 2 February 2009. Two daughters were born from this marriage.
After his death, petitioner No.1 applied for compassionate appointment and submitted an application dated 2 March 2022 along with supporting affidavits and documents. The first wife also submitted an affidavit stating she would not claim any benefit of compassionate appointment.
Despite an appointment letter being issued to the petitioner on 12 September 2023, she was not permitted to join, following an opinion given by the Corporation’s Law Officer that a Panchayati divorce was not equivalent to a decree from a court of competent jurisdiction, and thus the second marriage was void.
Legal Issue
Whether the second wife of a deceased government employee, whose first marriage was not judicially dissolved but who was nominated in the service records and was wholly dependent on the deceased, is entitled to compassionate appointment.
Arguments
For the Petitioners:
Senior Advocate G.S. Punia submitted that petitioner No.1 was living with the deceased as his wife since 2009, had two children from the wedlock, and was declared as nominee for retiral benefits in his service record.
He further pointed out that the first wife had given an affidavit stating she would not claim any compassionate appointment. He argued that the petitioners were wholly dependent on the deceased and that denial of compassionate appointment was unjustified.
Counsel relied on the following judgments:
- Vidyadhari & Ors. v. Sukhrana Bai & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 238
- Tulsa Devi Nirola & Ors. v. Radha Nirola & Ors., 2020 (2) SCT 301
- Gaddam Ruth Victoria v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, 2023 (6) Andh LD 194
For the Respondents:
Counsel for PSPCL contended that since the petitioner’s marriage occurred during the subsistence of the deceased’s first marriage, and there was no court decree of divorce, the marriage was void. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to compassionate appointment.
He relied on:
- Nishan Singh v. State of Punjab, CRWP No. 763 of 2021 (decided on 27.01.2021)
- Smt. Manjula N. v. Commissioner of Police, W.P. No. 33134-2016 (Karnataka High Court, decided on 19.10.2022)
Observations
The Court acknowledged that while the petitioner did not acquire the legal status of a spouse due to the absence of a judicial divorce, the facts of the case were crucial.
“It is an admitted fact that petitioner No.1 was married with Tirath Singh (since deceased) in the year 2009 and was blessed with two daughters. It is admitted fact that petitioner No.1 was residing with late Tirath Singh almost for 23 years till he expired on 26.02.2022.”
The Court noted:
“Petitioner No.1 has been declared as a nominee in the service record of late Tirath Singh and is entitled for grant of retiral benefits in accordance with law.”
“First wife of Tirath Singh (since deceased) has already given an affidavit to the effect that she will not claim appointment on compassionate ground.”
The Court examined Vidyadhari, where the Supreme Court held that though the second marriage was void, a nominee second wife who had lived with the deceased and raised their children could receive death benefits.
The Court observed:
“In Vidhyadhari, it was held that the second wife was not a legal heir but was a nominee, and was therefore entitled to death benefits arising from the employment. The High Court should have realised that Vidhyadhari was not only a nominee but also was the mother of four children of Sheetaldeen who were the legal heirs of Sheetaldeen.”
On the judgments cited by PSPCL, the Court held:
“In Nishan Singh’s case… the issue was involved with regard to police help… In Smt. Manjula. N’s case… there was no material on record to show that the respondent therein was a nominee of the deceased employee… the same does not support case of the respondents.”
Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
“Petitioner No.1 (widow) of late Tirath Singh, who has been declared nominee in the service record and was wholly dependent upon the late Tirath Singh, is held entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate ground.”
“The respondents are directed to permit petitioner No.1 to join the duty in pursuance to the appointment letter dated 12.09.2023 (Annexure P-27) issued to petitioner No.1 within a period of 02 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.”
All pending applications were also disposed of.
Case Title: Kirandeep Kaur and others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Case No.: CWP-19578 of 2023 (O&M)
