Back
2018 Supreme(Tri) 23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Shri Kishore Deb Barma S/o Late Triparna Deb Barma - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura - Respondent
WP(C) 1017 of 2016
Decided On : 11-01-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacahrjee, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms. R Purakayastha, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the basis for denying compassionate appointment ceases to exist if the family member, whose employment is cited as a reason for denial, was living separately and in employment before the death of the deceased employee.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Denial of Appointment under Die-in-Harness Scheme - The court directed the respondents to consider the compassionate appointment of the petitioner within three months as the basis for denying the appointment had ceased to exist.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the decision of the respondents denying him the appointment under the die-in-harness scheme for the death of his father, a Class-IV employee. The respondents denied the appointment citing government guidelines due to the employment of the deceased employee's other son.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the other son of the deceased employee was living separately and in employment before the death of the deceased employee, thus the basis for denying the appointment to the petitioner had ceased to exist. The court appreciated the fairness shown by the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of appointment under the die-in-harness scheme due to the employment of the deceased employee's other son.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the other son of the deceased employee was living separately and in employment before the death of the deceased employee, which negated the basis for denying the appointment to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to consider the compassionate appointment of the petitioner within three months as the basis for denying the appointment had ceased to exist.
1. Heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Mr. S. Debbarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms R Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has seriously questioned the decision of the respondents denying him the appointment under the die-in-harness scheme for death of his father, namely, Triparna Debbarma who was working as Class-IV employee in the Tripura Institute of Technology, Agartala. The said employee died on 16.02.2009 in harness leaving behind five family members including the petitioner, one of the sons as transpires from the survival certificate dated 26.06.2009 (Anenxure-1 to the writ petition).
3. The writ petitioner has clearly revealed that one of the sons of the deceased employee namely, Rabindra Debbarma has been working as a Forest Guard and he got this appointment during the life time of the deceased employee, but it has been asserted in para 3 of the writ petition that Rabindra Debbarma, one of the sons of the deceased employee has been living separately from his father after his marriage and he had got his name registered in a separate Register of Ordinary Residence (ROR) after separating his family from the family of the deceased employee. Rabindra Debbarma has got a separate ration card for his family and thus his employment cannot be treated, according to the petitioner, as an embargo for extending compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. Other family members have also issued No Objection to the respondents in respect of providing job to the petitioner.
4. By the communication dated 04.01.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) the petitioner was communicated that since there is a government employee in the family of the deceased employee, the petitioner cannot get a job under the die-in-harness scheme as per the government guidelines. The said decision has been challenged in this writ petition. The respondents by filing their reply has taken the stand as reflected in the communication dated 04.01.2010.
5. As the first report of the concerned SDM appeared inadequate to come for coming to a definite finding whether Rabindra Debbarma was living separately from the family of the deceased employee before death or not, this Court by the order dated 18.09.2017 had directed the SDM, Sadar, West Tripura to ascertain whether Sri Rabindra Debbarma, son of the deceased employee was living in the family of the deceased employee at the time of his death.
6. Ms R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents today produced the report of the SDM, Sadar, West Tripura, under No.F.2(25)/SDM/SDR/ESTT/3782 dated 29.11.2017. For purpose of reference, the entire text of the said communication made to the Director of Higher Education, Government of Tripura, the appointing authority, is extracted hereunder:
“To
The Director of Higher Education,
Govt. of Tripura, Agartala.
Subject:- Enquiry report regarding the family status of Sri Kishore Debbarma S/O Late Triparna Debbarma of Vill:-Kabrakhamar, P.O. Durganagar, P.S. Ranirbazar, West Tripura in connection with providing employment under Die-in-harness Scheme.
Sir,
Kindly refer to your letter No.F7(29-179)-DHE(NG)/09 dated 26-10—2017 on the subject cited above, I would like to inform you that as per field enquiry report conducted by the field functionaries of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, it reveals that Sri Rabindra Debbarma was not living with his father Triparna Debbrma at the time of death. It also appears that though not living with his father at the time of death but name of Rabindra Debbarma was in the family ration card with other member at the then period and at present both Rabindra Debbarma and Kishore Debbarma living separately with separate ration card. Copy of enquiry report is enclosed herewith.
This is for favour of kind information and doing the needful please.
Enclo :- As stated.
Yours faith
