The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that a second wife is entitled to compassionate appointment if she was nominated by the deceased husband in service records and was wholly dependent on him, even if the first marriage was not legally dissolved.

Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa, while allowing a plea filed by Kirandeep Kaur, 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.”

Background

Kirandeep Kaur had approached the Court seeking compassionate appointment and solatium for her two minor daughters after the death of her husband, Tirath Singh, an Assistant Lineman with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL), who passed away on February 26, 2022 while in service.

Tirath Singh was previously married to Baljinder Kaur in 2006 and had reportedly obtained a Panchayati divorce in 2007. He married Kirandeep Kaur in 2009 and they lived together for over 23 years until his death.

Despite her being nominated in Singh’s service records and having submitted all required documents, PSPCL denied her appointment based on a legal opinion that the Panchayati divorce was not legally valid, thereby rendering the second marriage void.

The Court acknowledged that while a second marriage during the subsistence of the first may be considered legally void, Kirandeep Kaur was undisputedly the nominee and dependent, and had raised two children with the deceased.

It also emphasized that the first wife had submitted an affidavit stating she would not claim compassionate appointment or raise any future claims.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Vidyadhari & Ors. v. Sukhrana Bai & Ors. [2008(1) RCR (Civil) 900], the Court noted that a second wife, though in a void marriage, was still held entitled to pension benefits when nominated by the deceased.

“It is admitted fact that petitioner was residing with late Tirath Singh almost for 23 years till he expired... and is entitled for grant of retiral benefits in accordance with law,” the Court observed.

Allowing the plea, the Court directed PSPCL to permit the petitioner to join duty pursuant to the appointment letter that was issued during the pendency of the case.

Case Title: Kirandeep Kaur and others v. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others
Counsel: Mr. G.S. Punia, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Harleen Kaur for the petitioners; Mr. Rangat Joshi for the respondents.