The die-in-harness Scheme applies to the teaching and non-teaching employees of privately managed Government aided schools, irrespective of the date of death of the employee. Financial assistance is only available when there is no eligible person for employment.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of both the writ appeals, for, both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 12.12.2006, passed in WP (C) No. 60/2001.

2. For the purpose of appreciating the questions, which have arisen for determination in the present appeals, the material facts giving rise to the present appeals are set out as follows:

(i) While serving as an Assistant Teacher in Ramthakur Pathsala Primary Section attached to the Boys' Higher Secondary School, Agartala, which is a privately managed Government aided school, Ranjit Kumar Roy breathed his last, on 26.05.96, leaving behind Smti Chandana Roy as his widow and Sri Kumarjit Roy as his son. Both the legal representatives of the said deceased submitted an application to the Administrator of the said school seeking, on compassionate ground, appointment for Sri Kumarjit Roy aforementioned. The Administrator of the said school forwarded, vide its communication, dated 11.03.97, the said application to the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura. As repeated requests for appointment of Kumarjit Roy aforementioned, under die-in-harness Scheme, failed to yield any favourable result, a writ petition was filed by the said two legal representatives, Smt. Chandana Roy being the Petitioner No. 1 and her son, Kumarjit Roy, being the Petitioner No. 2, their case being, briefly stated, thus: The benefit of compassionate appointment, under die-in-harness Scheme, was, initially, introduced by the Government of Tripura confining the benefit of the said Scheme to the legal heirs of only those teachers, who were working in Government Schools. By memorandum, dated 13.08.96, a comprehensive procedure for providing employment under the die-in-harness scheme was introduced. In the said memorandum, a provision was also made for giving financial assistance of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- if the employment, for reasons mentioned in the said memorandum, was not provided. By yet another memorandum, dated 19.11.97, the benefit of the Scheme of die-in-harness was extended to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the privately managed Government aided schools in Tripura. As the benefit of the Scheme covered by memorandum, dated 13.08.96, aforementioned, has been extended to teachers of privately managed Government aided schools in Tripura, the Government of Tripura ought to have provided employment to the Petitioner No. 2 and as the Government has failed to provide employment to the Petitioner No. 2, the Petitioners sought for issuance of appropriate Writ (s) commanding the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner No. 2 under the said Scheme.

(ii) The Respondents resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that the die-in-harness Scheme was, for the first time, introduced, in respect of teachers of privately managed Government aided schools on 19.11.1997, but as Ranjit Roy had died on 26.05.96, i.e., before the said Scheme became applicable to the teachers of the privately managed Government aided school, the writ Petitioners case was neither covered under the memorandum, dated 13.08.96, nor under the memorandum, dated 19.11.97 and, hence, the writ Petitioner No. 2 could not be given any employment under the said Scheme.

(iii) In the impugned judgment and order, a learned Single Judge of this Court has concluded that the memorandum, dated 19.11.97, aforementioned covers the cases of those persons too, who were, otherwise, covered by memorandum, dated 13.08.96, and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Petitioner No. 2 was entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of the said Scheme. While, however, granting relief, the learned Single Judge has held that the memorandum, dated 13.08.96, aforementioned envisaged providing of financial assistance as an alternative to the employment and that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Petitioners were entitled to only financial ass