JUDGMENT AND ORDER :

Heard Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The facts laid in this writ petition are mostly admitted. The petitioner’s father namely Hirendra Sarkar who was serving as the Night Guard in the Department of Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture, Government of Tripura, Agartala, died on 13.03.2004 in the harness. From the survival certificate dated 01.07.2004 as issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh, West Tripura it would transpire that the deceased employee is survived by his widow Ms. Maya Rani Sarkar, Sri. Rajesh Sarkar, the petitioner (his son), Sri. Jitan Sarkar (his son) and Sri. Babul Sarkar (his son).

3. The widow of the deceased employee made an application on 17.03.2004 for the first time seeking a job to any of the members of the family so that they can tide over the serious stringency visited for death of the deceased employee. On 26.07.2010 the petitioner made the prayer for providing appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. The petitioner produced a few documents like citizenship certificate, mark-sheet and admit card certificate. Again on 30.07.2010, the widow of the deceased employee made a further representation to the Director of Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture, Government of Tripura. It appears that the petitioner had also made an application on 18.10.2004. In response to the prayer dated 30.07.2010 made by the widow of the deceased employee to the Director of Handloom, Handicrafts & Sericulture communicated that the prayer for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme had already been regretted by the government after due consideration. Thereafter, on 27.06.2017 another representation was filed by the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. For that purpose, all the relevant facts were averred for consideration, but no positive result has yielded. Hence, the petitioner has approached this court for an appropriate direction on the respondents to provide him the appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme.

4. Filing the reply, the respondents have stated that by the letter dated 29.08.2005 [Annexure-R/2 to the reply] the petitioner was informed that his prayer for employment under Die-in-harness Scheme has been regretted by the Government on due consideration. A similar communication was made on 31.08.2010 [Annexure-R/3 to the reply] to the widow of the deceased employee. The respondents, therefore, have contended that the writ petition is hit by delay and laches and it is not competent to derive any benefit under the Die-in-harness Scheme. That apart, the respondents have stated further that the deceased employee was unauthorisedly absent from the duties for a period of 1587 days with effect from 08.11.1999 till his death. Even, when the correspondence were made to him, he did not make any reply and suddenly, the widow of the deceased employee made the prayer for the employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme where she had apprised the competent authority that on 13.03.2004 the said employee died while he was in harness. In Para-10 of the reply, the respondents have stated as under :

“But the Finance Department regretted the proposal vide U.O No.579/FIN(G)/05, dated, 01.08.2005. Accordingly, the petitioner was communicated about the views of the Finance Department vide letter dated 29.08.2005. The petitioner knowing fully well about the letter dated 29.08.2005 suppressed the same in the instant writ petition. Moreover, the letter dated 29.08.2005 is unchallenged in the instant writ petition. No averment in respect to the letter dated 29.08.2005 has been made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition.”

5. Mr. K. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s family has come impoverished for sudden death of the deceased employee. They made the application in due time but that was regr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document