The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Die-in-harness scheme and the definition of 'family' for compassionate appointment, emphasizing the welfare objective of the scheme and the need to support the dependants of the deceased employee.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. M.K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged interference of this court in the decision as reflected in the memorandum dated 12.05.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition] as well as the communication dated 20.06.2016 [Annexure-H to the writ petition] denying the compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness scheme for death of his mother namely Belaphul Debbarma who had been working as a Group-D employee under the Directorate of School Education. The petitioner’s mother, herein after referred to as the deceased employee died suddenly on 21.08.2013. She had left behind her five dependants as it would be apparent from the survival certificate dated 19.11.2013 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, West Tripura [Annexure-E to the writ petition]. The other survivors namely Namita Debbarma, Suva Rani Debbarma and Kiran Mala Debbarma [daughters] and Bipin Debbarma [son] have executed a no objection certificate to the competent authority undertaking that they would have no objection if the petitioner namely Jatindra Debbarma is appointed under Die-in-harness scheme for death of their mother.

3. There is no dispute that the petitioner submitted all the necessary testimonials to satisfy the requirement for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. But his prayer was not acceded to and by the memorandum dated 12.05.2015 [Annexure-F to the writ petition] it has been communicated that since he was not living with the family of the deceased employee at the time of her death, he cannot be treated as the member of the ‘family’ within the meaning provided under the Die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner had tried to impress the competent authority for such appointment and finally served a notice on 08.06.2016 [Annexure-G to the writ petition]. But by the reply dated 20.06.2016 [Annexure-H to the writ petition] the petitioner was informed that the decision as taken and communicated by the memorandum dated 12.05.2015 stands. Hence the petitioner has approached this court for an appropriate direction on the respondents particularly on the respondent No.2 to provide him an appointment under Die-in-harness scheme as he is eligible to be appointed under the said scheme.

4. The respondents after having the notice have by filing the reply reiterated the same premise to deny the petitioner a compassionate appointment. Moreover, they have further stated that what the petitioner has stated in the writ petition that he was living his mother on the day of death but the two ration cards were prepared for getting some advantages in the PDS commodities. Such interpretation is hardly acceptable inasmuch as the admitted position is that the separate ration card was issued in favour of the petitioner much before the death of the deceased employee. In the para-13 of the reply, the respondents have stated as under:

“That, in respect to the contention of Para 14 and 15 of the Writ Petition, the Answering Respondents submit, that, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2015 is applicable in the instant case. In W.P.(C) No.161 of 2015, the lis involved before the Hon’ble High Court has been settled by considering the disputes, that, the Petitioner of W.P.(C) 161 of 2015 was living separately being a married person having two separate ration cards bearing the name of the Petitioner i.e. Bharat Milan Jamatia and after considering such situation, the Hon’ble High Court vide Order, dated, 13.08.2015, passed an order in favour of the Petitioner with a direction to the State Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner by giving him compassionate appointment within a period of three months. In the instance case, the dispute involved is that, the Petitioner Jatindra Debbarma, being a married person was living separately while his mother Belaphul Debbarma, a Govt. Servant (Gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document