Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
Smt. Kaberi Sharma, daughter of late Ratan Kumar Sharma - Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 672 of 2017
Decided On : 19-02-2018
Die-in-harness Scheme - Appointment - 24.09.2011 - [F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/92(L)] - The court discussed the Die-in-harness Scheme and its provisions, particularly the definition of 'family' and the eligibility of married daughters for employment under the scheme. The court emphasized that all legitimate children of the deceased employee should be treated as part of the family, and only married sons or daughters living separately from other family members would be excluded.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme for the death of her father while in service. The respondents rejected her application, offering financial assistance instead. The petitioner challenged this decision, claiming eligibility for compassionate appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as a married daughter living with the widow of the deceased employee, was eligible for appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. It noted the failure of the respondents to conduct a proper inquiry as required by the scheme.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a married daughter living with the widow of the deceased employee, was eligible for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that all legitimate children of the deceased employee should be treated as part of the family, and only married sons or daughters living separately from other family members would be excluded from eligibility for employment under the Die-in-harness Scheme.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner within three months from the date of the order.
Heard Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents No.1 to 4 for appointing her under the Die-in-harness Scheme for death of her father namely Ratan Kumar Sharma while in service as the Junior Physical Instructor under the Directorate of Youth Affairs and Sports Department, Government of Tripura on 02.04.2016 and also for quashing the memorandum No.F.1(3-22)-DYAS/Estt/KS/2016/16017-25 dated 04.03.2017 issued by the Additional Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Education(YAS) Department [Annexure-K to the writ petition] for being grossly in contravention to the provisions of the Die-in-harness Scheme as framed by the respondents.
3. It is apparent from the memorandum dated 04.03.2017 [Annexure-K to the writ petition] that the family of the deceased employee was offered a sum of Rs.100,000/-(one lakh) as the financial assistance as there was no eligible person in the family of the deceased government employee to get the appointment under the said scheme. The petitioner has refused that financial assistance and insisted
4. Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that within the prescribed period as provided under the Die-in-harness Scheme, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme with necessary testimonials on 26.08.2016 [see the application dated 26.08.2016, Annexure-F to the writ petition]. It is apparent from the letter dated 23.12.2016 that the Joint Director, Youth Affairs & Sports, Tripura by his letter dated 23.12.2016 communicated to the Head of Office & DDO (Sub-Divisional YAS Office, Bishalgarh) of the deceased employee to inform whether the petitioner had married recently. The mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Kiran Sharma by the letter dated 30.12.2016 communicated to the Sports Officer, H.O. & DDO, Sub-Divisional Youth Affairs and Sports, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala, Tripura that the petitioner was married on 12.05.2012 and her daughter came back to her after about one and half year as her daughter’s husband, who is unemployed, took shelter in her family.
5. In this perspective, the respondents assessed the petitioner as not eligible to get the compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. By the memorandum dated 04.03.2017, the respondents had proposed for financial assistance to the tune of Rs.100,000/- (1 lakh) as no eligible person was available in the family of the deceased government employee to get the compassionate appointment. The petitioner has categorically averred in the writ petition that without calling the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bishalgarh in terms of the well-laid procedure under the Die-in-harness Scheme, the respondents rejected her prayer for compassionate appointment, commensurate to her qualification. As such, there was no physical inquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner has been living with her widow mother or not. However, the petitioner and her mother has refused to accept that financial assistance as there is eligible person to get the compassionate appointment in the family of the deceased employee. On 22.08.2016, the petitioner had submitted the statement supported by affidavit undertaking that the petitioner would maintain all the family members after her appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. But no positive action came forth and hence, the petitioner has approached this court for the directions as stated above.
6. The respondents have averred in their reply that the petitioner is married to one Bapi Acharya and thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not separated herself from her husband. But in the reply it has been clearly admitted no report was asked from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as required by the said scheme :
“Therefore, the authority was of the view that there is no grou
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
