A child from the first marriage will continue to receive an equal share in compassionate financial assistance after a government employee’ death even if he had remarried, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled.

The court held that divorce between husband and wife did not sever the legal relationship between a father and his child. It also held that Rule 28 of the Haryana Civil Services (Compassionate Financial Assistance or Appointment) Rules, 2019, expressly mandated payment of compassionate financial assistance in equal shares to the widow and an eligible child from a divorced wife.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by the second wife of Haryana Education Department employee, Justice Sandeep Moudgil upheld orders granting equal compassionate financial assistance to the employee's son from his first marriage, observing that the language of Rule 28 was "plain, unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretative exercise”.

The petitioner had challenged orders dated December 9/17, 2025, and March 9, this year, whereby the competent authority held the deceased employee's son from his first marriage entitled to an equal share of compassionate financial assistance and sanctioned payment accordingly.

She also sought adjustment of the amount already released exclusively to her against future monthly payments.

Justice Moudgil observed that the child from first marriage was born on April 23, 2010. The marriage ended in divorce by mutual consent on July 15, 2019. The employee, thereafter, married the petitioner on July 22, 2019, and a child was born from that marriage. While serving as a DPE in the Haryana Education Department, he died in harness on July 5, 2024.

Following his death, compassionate financial assistance was initially sanctioned exclusively in the petitioner-second wife’s favour. Subsequently, the respondent-child from first marriage approached the High Court through his mother in an earlier writ petition. Pursuant to directions issued by the court, the competent authority examined the matter, held him entitled to an equal share under Rule 28 of the 2019 Rules and thereafter issued the consequential sanction order on March 9.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the respondent-child could not be treated as a dependent family member because his mother had divorced the employee in 2019, a sum of Rs 30 lakh had been paid towards permanent alimony and maintenance, and his custody remained with his mother. It was contended that since the child was residing separately, he could not be regarded as dependent upon the employee or claim compassionate financial assistance.

Opposing the plea, the State and counsel for the respondent-child argued that Rule 28 specifically contemplated a situation where a deceased government employee was survived by a widow and an eligible child from a divorced wife, making payment in equal shares mandatory. They submitted that issues of custody, residence, dependency or maintenance received under the divorce settlement were irrelevant once the statutory provision applied.

Reproducing Rule 28, Justice Moudgil observed: "Where the deceased government employee is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible children from a divorced wife or wives, compassionate financial assistance shall be payable in equal shares."

Emphasising the plain language of the provision, Justice Moudgil observed: "The language employed by the rule-making authority is plain, unambiguous and leaves no room for interpretative exercise. The Rule specifically recognises two categories of beneficiaries, namely the widow of the deceased employee; and eligible child or children from a divorced wife. Once these conditions exist, the Rule itself mandates that compassionate financial assistance shall be payable in equal shares."

Rejecting the petitioner's principal contention, the court held: "Divorce may sever the marital relationship between husband and wife, but it does not sever the relationship between a father and his child. The status of respondent-child as son of the late employee never stood extinguished by virtue of the decree of divorce. Equally, the payment of permanent alimony to the divorced wife or maintenance amount for the child cannot result in forfeiture of statutory rights subsequently conferred by service rules."

Justice Moudgil also rejected the contention that respondent-child was not dependent upon the deceased employee. Explaining the distinction drawn by the Rules, the Bench observed: "Significantly, Rule 28 of 2019 Rules does not employ the expression 'dependent child'. The Rule consciously uses the expression 'eligible child'. The distinction is not accidental. Had the rule-making authority intended dependency to be the governing criterion, it could have expressly incorporated such requirement."

The judgment further stated: "Instead, a special provision has been carved out specifically for children born from a divorced wife, thereby recognising that such children may not necessarily be residing with the deceased employee at the time of his death. The legislative intent, therefore, appears to be that notwithstanding the divorce between the parents, the child should not be deprived of the benefit flowing from the service of the deceased Government employee."

Justice Moudgil observed that respondent-child was born from the lawful wedlock of the employee, was a minor on the date of his father's death and suffered from no statutory disqualification. Once he answered the description of an "eligible child" under the Rules, Rule 28 automatically came into operation.

The High Court also rejected the petitioner's contention that respondent-child had already obtained a share in the employee's agricultural property, holding that succession to an estate and entitlement to compassionate financial assistance operated in distinct fields and one could not be made dependent upon the other so as to deny him his statutory entitlement.

Concluding the matter, Justice Moudgil held: "Respondent-child continues to be the son and legal heir of the deceased employee for the purpose of compassionate financial assistance notwithstanding the divorce between his parents and that Rule 28 of 2019 Rules specifically recognises entitlement of an 'eligible child' from a divorced wife. The competent authority has merely given effect to the statutory mandate while directing release of compassionate financial assistance in equal shares."

Finding no illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.