IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Smt. Mousumi Sen, d/o late Tapan Chandra Sen - Petitioner
Versus
The Managing Director, Tripura Forest Development & Plantation Corporation Ltd. and Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 629 of 2016
Decided On : 15-09-2016
Die-in-harness Scheme - Employment - Circular issued by the General Administration (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura - Notification dated 28.12.2015 - Die-in-harness Scheme - Financial Assistance - Government Order - Mode of Payment - Special Consideration
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a job under the Die-in-harness Scheme after her father, a Corporation Forester, passed away while working. The Corporation offered financial assistance instead of employment, citing a government rule and circular. The petitioner's family did not accept the financial assistance, claiming an overhaul of the Die-in-harness Scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's appointment cannot be considered under the Die-in-harness Scheme for Government employees. The family was entitled to financial assistance, and the Corporation was directed to invest the amount as prescribed. The respondents were also directed to consider providing a job on compassionate grounds.
Issues: Eligibility for job under Die-in-harness Scheme, applicability of the scheme to Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), and compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Die-in-harness Scheme did not apply to PSUs and upheld the entitlement to financial assistance. It also emphasized the need for compassionate consideration in providing employment.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the investment of financial assistance and consideration for job placement on compassionate grounds.
Heard Ms. R. Purakayasta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged this Court to provide her a job under Die-in-harness Scheme as her father died in harness on 09.08.2015 while working as the Corporation Forester under Tripura Forest Development Plantation Corporation Ltd., the TFDPC in short. Lastly, he was posted at Chittamara, under Forest Corporation Division, South-I. It is also not in dispute that there is no earning member in the family of the deceased employee namely, Tapan Chandra Sen. Hence, the petitioner being the eldest daughter of the deceased employee, applied for a job under die-in-harness scheme. In terms of the Die-in-Harness Scheme, as in force in the Government Departments, the petitioner has got the eligibility for appointment under that scheme. As the Corporation was not acting on her application for providing job under the die-in-harness scheme and particularly on the face of the communication dated 02.03.2016, Annexure-G to the writ petition, whereby it has been apprised to the mother of the petitioner, namely Madhuri Nag Sen, she has approached this Court. The said communication dated 02.03.2016 reads as under:
“I am directed to refer to the above and to inform you that as per prevalent Govt. Rule, Corporation is unable to provide employment. As per Government order in lieu of employment under ‘Die-in-Harness Scheme’ you are eligible to get Rs.1,00,000/- as financial Assistance.
There is also Govt. order regarding mode of payment. Out of total financial assistance, Rs.96,000/- will be deposited in the Monthly Savings Scheme and rest amount of Rs.4,000/- in Kishan Bikash Patra of Postal Department. Duration of MIS will be for a period of six years at the end of which the entire amount is to be paid by the Post Office to the concerned party. The benefit is applicable only if there is no earning member in your family.
I am thus directed to inform you that you may apply for the benefit if there is no earning member in your family. Your application should be supported by document issued by SDM indicating that there is no earning member in the family.”
In expectation of getting a job, the family members of the deceased employee did not accept the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) as the financial assistance under the die-in-harness scheme, in vogue in the corporation.
3. The respondents by filing a counter affidavit have stated that the employees of the Public Sector Undertakings, the PSUs in short, did not come under the preview of die-in-harness scheme, meant for the State Government employees and due to non-availability of vacancies, the concerned organizations are not in a position to provide any employment under the die-in-harness scheme. Since the decision of the Government under die-in-harness scheme has not been extended to the PSUs, therefore, it is not possible to create a supernumerary posts, where the PSUs are expected to accommodate the cases falling under the purview of the die-in-harness scheme.
In this regard, they have relied on a circular issued by the General Administration (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura on 30.05.2001, Annexure-R/2 to the counter affidavit.
4. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the die-in-harness scheme has not been extended to the PSUs and they are guided by the circular of G.A (P&T) Department as all the PSUs for any measure involving the finance has to be concurred by the State Government.
In view of that general instruction in the form of the order dated 30.05.2001, Annexure-R/2 to the counter affidavit, the following benefit can be availed by the dependants of the family members of the deceased employee who died in harness:
“....it has been decided that one time financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) only shall be paid by the concerned organisation from
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.