Justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa made a decision in CWP-19578 of 2023 on May 29, 2025, on the compassionate hiring of a widow by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited. The petitioner, who was the wife of an Assistant Lineman, who died in the line of duty, requested to be appointed on humanitarian grounds.
Although legal issues arose due to a former marriage that was not legally dissolved, the High Court managed to materially bring the law and social justice into conflict.
The Facts and background
Tirath Singh, an Assistant Lineman, passed on in February 2022. He remarried after a regular divorce with his first wife in the year 2009. The petitioner stayed with him till he died and was appointed the beneficiary of his retirement benefits.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
She was his second wife and the mother of his two young girls. The corporate law officer said that the usual divorce was not legally legitimate, even if the first wife gave up her claim. This is why the petitioner was not given a compassionate appointment.
The Law on Compassionate Appointments
In Punjab, service regulations provide that relatives of government workers who die while on duty might get compassionate appointments. Most of the time, these restrictions say that the beneficiary must be a lawfully married spouse or kid. But nomination rules and fairness issues may change strict interpretations.
The court looked at the requirements for nominating someone for a provident fund and family pension, as well as circular instructions that say a second wife may get a pension provided there is a nomination or departmental authorization.
Legal Issues and Confllict of Claims
Petitioners stated that the widow was supposed to be appointed because she was dependent on the military records and she was married to the first husband. They relied on decisions by the Supreme Court cases which stated that candidates are eligible to receive pensions and be in the queue to take over the position.
According to the norms of conduct, the answers said that a void second marriage could not provide someone spouse status or appointment privileges unless the department gave authorization for the marriage.
The Court’s Analysis and Balancing of Fairness
fairness Nalwa said that service regulations are meant to help dependents and should be read broadly to promote social fairness.Nomination of the employee in the service book and the petitioner and daughters in pension proposals and the statement made by the employee were sufficient to prove that she was eligible. The reality that the department failed to give the green light to marriage did not alter the effects of the nomination.
The Court relied on decisions of the Supreme Court to state that nomination overrides formal marital legitimacy in so far as it pertains to protecting children and dependents.
In order to balance the interests of both parties, the Court said that prior maintenance payments should go to the first wife, but all other service benefits, such as medical claims, should go to the petitioner and her children. The family pension was to be split evenly.
Elementary Regulations Were Applied.
The verdict had three major components. First, the nomination requirements give that a government employee can select one or more individuals to get retirement benefits. Second, the criteria used in compassionate appointments are there to safeguard dependents and the courts can alter them to ensure that social justice is manifested.
Third, circular instructions make it clear that a second marriage without authorization is not valid, but they do not stop benefits based on nominations. When taken collectively, these rules provide courts the ability to make sure that families who have lost a loved one may make a living.
This ruling indicates that the judicial system is willing to bend service rules and provide an interpretation that makes sense. The Court applauded the constitutional obligation and social justice of placing the welfare of the dependents over and above the technicalities of procedure.
The decision provides some guidance to the authorities in the public sector in similar compassionate appointment cases. It leaves no doubt that nomination and actual dependency are sufficient to receive relief despite the disputable marriage status. It also reveals the degree of the necessity of the courts to balance between the law and the needs of people.
A good example of a fair and kind method of making compassionate appointment is the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-19578 of 2023.
By recognizing the nomination and dependence of the petitioner the Court honored the spirit of service standards and the demands of social equity. The decision will create a precedent and serve as a reminder to officials that they should focus on the fairness and compassion when interpreting employee benefit plans.
