Phoolwati (Smt) v. Union Of India And Others, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant is the widow of Ram Krisan Lal, an employee of the Government of India Printing Press who died in harness on 25-03-1989. After his death she continued to live, with her three children, in the government quarter that had been allotted to her husband. She requested two forms of interim relief: (1) permission to remain in the quarter on payment of rent, and (2) compassionate appointment of her second son in the same Printing Press.

The Central Administrative Tribunal, by order dated 08-06-1990, refused both interim prayers on the ground that the accommodation was tied to the deceased employee’s service. Challenging that decision, the appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. On 23-10-1990 the Court granted interim protection allowing her to stay in the quarter pending disposal of the case. The Union of India filed an affidavit detailing the gratuity, insurance and pension amounts already paid to the appellant and opposed both her continued occupation of the quarter and the request for compassionate employment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Requested compassionate employment for her literate second son commensurate with his qualifications.

Sought permission to remain in the government quarter, offering to pay reasonable rent and citing continued residence since her husband’s death.

Union of India’s Arguments

Opposed continued occupation of the quarter, noting that the appellant had already received Rs 21,000 (DCR gratuity), Rs 10,926 (CGE insurance) and Rs 1,717 (GPF), and draws a family pension of Rs 390 per month.

Communicated instructions that it was “not possible” to provide employment to the appellant’s son in the Printing Press.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sushma Gosain (Smt) v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468; AIR 1989 SC 1976	Compassionate appointments must be granted without delay to mitigate hardship; if no suitable post exists, a supernumerary post should be created.	The Court relied on this principle to direct the Union of India to provide immediate employment to the appellant’s son and criticised the delay in extending compassionate benefits.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Sushma Gosain (Smt) v. Union of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468; AIR 1989 SC 1976

Compassionate appointments must be granted without delay to mitigate hardship; if no suitable post exists, a supernumerary post should be created.

The Court relied on this principle to direct the Union of India to provide immediate employment to the appellant’s son and criticised the delay in extending compassionate benefits.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that compassionate appointment exists to relieve the financial distress caused by the death of the sole breadwinner. Relying squarely on the ruling in Sushma Gosain, the Court emphasised that such appointments should not be delayed and that, if necessary, supernumerary posts may be created.

The Court noted that despite repeated opportunities, the Union of India maintained that no post could be offered. Finding this stance inconsistent with the precedent and the purpose of compassionate employment, the Court ordered the Union to act forthwith. As to accommodation, the Court found no substantive justification for eviction while the compassionate appointment issue remained unresolved, especially as the appellant paid rent during her occupancy.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed.

Directions issued: (1) The Union of India must appoint the appellant’s second son to a suitable post matching his educational qualifications within one month of the order. (2) The appellant may continue to reside in the existing government quarter with her family. (3) The appellant shall withdraw her application pending before the Tribunal. No costs were awarded.

The ruling enforces prompt implementation of compassionate appointments and underscores that accommodation tied to employment may be temporarily retained to prevent hardship. The decision follows existing precedent and does not establish a new legal principle but reinforces strict compliance with earlier jurisprudence.

Phoolwati (Smt) v. Union Of India And Others

Order

1. Special leave granted.

2. This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order made by the Tribunal on June 8, 1990 whereby the prayer for interim relief of allowing the appellant, who is none other than the wife of deceased husband Ram Krisan Lal who was employed in the Government of India Printing Press, died in harness to employ her second son in the said Printing Press and to allow her to live in the same quarter where her husband lived as an employee of the printing press was not granted. This lady, along with her three children has been residing in that quarter after the death of her husband, which occurred on 25-3-1989. The government tried to evict her from the said quarter in spite of repeated requests made by the lady to allow her to stay in the quarter on realising reasonable rent from her. She also paid the rent as assessed during the period of her stay there. The Tribunal, however, dismissed her application on the ground that her husband died about a year ago and she cannot retain the quarter which was allotted to her husband while in service. The appellant approached this Court by a special leave petition praying for permitting her to stay in the quarter as well as to employ one of her three sons, specially, the second son who is literate, in the said printing press according to his qualification.

3. This Court issued a notice on 23-10-1990 and also directed that pending decision of this application she be permitted to continue her stay with her sons in the said quarter. The State has filed an affidavit stating that the appellant received an amount of Rs 21,000 as DCR gratuity. She also received CGE Insurance amounting to Rs 10,926 and GPF amounting to Rs 1717 of her deceased husband. She is also getting a Family Pension of Rs 390 per month, and as such, she cannot continue to stay in the quarter. This Court repeatedly requested the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India to consider the provisions that when an employee dies in harness, one of his legal representatives will be provided with an employment on compassionate ground. In spite of time being given repeatedly by this Court to consider this aspect of the matter and to take necessary instructions from Union of India, the counsel states before this Court that he has been instructed by the Government of India that it is not possible to provide her second son with an employment in the said press where her husband was previously employed. In a similar case, Sushma Gosain (Smt) v. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 468, AIR 1989 SC 1976 this Court has held as under:

“… It must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.”

Accordingly, we direct the Union of India to take immediate steps for employing the second son of the appellant in a suitable post commensurate with his educational qualification within a period of one month from the date of this order. The appellant shall be permitted to stay in the said quarter where she is at present residing with the members of her family. The appellant will, however, withdraw her application filed before the Tribunal. The appeal is thus allowed. There will be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 5967 of 1990, decided on December 5, 1990

Phoolwati (Smt) v. Union Of India And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s Arguments

Union of India’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Phoolwati (Smt) v. Union Of India And Others

Comments