Punjab and Haryana High Court
Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs PSPCL To Allow Nominee Widow Of Deceased Employee To Join On Compassionate Grounds Despite Absence Of Divorce Decree In First Marriage
|The Court said that a nominee widow who was wholly dependent on the deceased employee is entitled to compassionate appointment, even if the marriage took place without a formal decree of divorce from the first wife.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a woman who was declared nominee in the deceased employee’s service records and was wholly dependent on him, merely on the ground that her marriage with the deceased was not solemnised after a court-decreed divorce from his first wife.
A Single Bench of Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa observed, “Although, Petitioner No. 1 does not acquire a status of the wife/spouse for a contracted marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage, however, 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 added, “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.”
Senior Advocate G. S. Punia appeared for the Petitioners, while Advocate Rangat Joshi appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner No.1 filed a petition seeking directions to the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL) to allow her to join on compassionate grounds pursuant to an appointment letter dated issued in 2023. Her husband, employed as an Assistant Lineman with PSPCL, had passed away in harness in 2022.
Though her appointment was processed and a letter was issued, she was not permitted to join due to an objection that the earlier marriage of the deceased was never legally dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction. The first wife had separated from the deceased in 2007 by way of a panchayati divorce, had remarried, and submitted an affidavit disavowing any claim.
The Law Officer of the Corporation had opined that legal Panchayati compromise regarding dissolution of marriage cannot be equated with the decree of divorce passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, and on that basis, the Petitioner No.1 was denied appointment.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that the case turned not on the legality of the second marriage but on the established facts of nomination, dependency, and long-term cohabitation. The Court observed that despite the technical invalidity of the marriage, the Petitioner No.1 could not be denied benefits arising from her nomination in the official records.
The Bench referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vidyadhari v. Sukhrana Bai (2008), where it was held that a nominee who was claims he death benefits arising out of the employment can always file an application under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act as there is nothing in that Section to prevent such a nominee from claiming the certificate on the basis of nomination.
The court observed, “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.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Kirandeep Kaur & Ors. v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:075172)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Senior Advocate G. S. Punia; Advocate Harleen Kaur
Respondents: Advocate Rangat Joshi