PHOOLWATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) This special Leave petition has been filed against the judgement and order made by the Tribunal on 8-6-90 whereby the prayer for interim relief of allowing the appellant, who is none other than the wife of deceased husband Ram Krishan lal who was employed in the Government of India Printing Press, died in to employ her second son in the said Printing press and to allow her to live in the same quater where her husband lived as an employee of the printing press. This lady, along with her three children has been residing in that quarter after the death of her husband,which occurred on 25-3-89. The Government tried to evict her from the said quarter in spite of repeated requests made by the lady sto allow her to stay in the quarter on realising the reasonable rent from her. She also paid the rent as assessed during tne 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 quater 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 23-10-90 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. 21,700/- 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 much, 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, Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1976 this Court has held as under (at page 1977 of AIR):--