Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J.
Debashri Chakraborty - Appellant
Versus
The State of Tripura and Ors - Respondent
WP(C) No. 562 of 2019
Decided On : 18-12-2019
For the Appellant :P. Roy Barman, Samarjit Bhattacharjee and A. Debbarma, Advocates
For the Respondent: Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the exclusion of married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme was unconstitutional, and even a married daughter would be entitled to make an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the parameters of the scheme.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Die-in-harness Scheme - [26.12.2015, 19.05.2017] - The court discussed the provisions of the die-in-harness scheme under the notifications dated 26.12.2015 and 19.05.2017. It highlighted the expansion of the scheme to include dependent legally divorcee daughters and the exclusion of married daughters under any circumstances. The court referred to various decisions of different High Courts, which held that the exclusion of married daughters from the scheme was unconstitutional and violative of the equality clause. The court declared that the portion of the notification dated 19.05.2017 excluding married daughters from the purview of the scheme was unconstitutional, and even a married daughter would be entitled to make an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the parameters of the scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of her application for appointment on compassionate grounds and a notification excluding married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme. The deceased mother of the petitioner was a Government servant, and the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds after her mother's death. The rejection was based on the notification excluding married daughters from the scheme.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exclusion of married daughters from the scheme was unconstitutional and violative of the equality clause. It declared that even a married daughter would be entitled to make an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the parameters of the scheme.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds and the constitutionality of the notification excluding married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the die-in-harness scheme provisions and the application of the equality clause. It relied on various decisions of different High Courts, which held that the exclusion of married daughters from the scheme was unconstitutional.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application afresh and dispose it of on merits within a period of four months.
JUDGMENT :
AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for final disposal of the petition.
2. Petitioner has challenged an order dated 11.02.2019 by which her application for appointment on compassionate grounds came to be rejected. The petitioner has also challenged a notification dated 19.05.2017 issued by the Government of Tripura declaring that married daughters under no circumstances shall be covered within the purview of the die-in-harness scheme. According to the petitioner this clause is unconstitutional and discriminatory and the petitioner, therefore, has prayed this portion of the said notification be quashed.
3. Brief facts are as under:
Smt. Anita Chakraborty, mother of the petitioner, was working as a Group-D staff in the office of the Superintendent of Police (Procurement) under the Department of Home, Government of Tripura. While in service she expired on 07.11.2016. Incidentally the petitioner's mother was appointed on compassionate grounds since her husband who was also a Government servant, had died while in service. The deceased had left behind two daughters including the present petitioner. The petitioner applied to the Government on 28.06.2017 for being appointed on compassionate grounds as per the die-in-harness scheme of the Government. Since the respondents did not decide the application of the petitioner, she filed W.P.(C) No. 1136 of 2018 before this Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by an order dated 07.12.2018 requiring the respondents to consider the said application expeditiously and to dispose of the same.
4. The respondents thereupon passed the impugned order dated 11.02.2019 relevant portion of which reads as under:
"Whereas, the Home Department, Government of Tripura has examined the representations submitted by Smt. Debashri Chakraborty and also the Notification dated 19.05.2017 of the General Administration (P&T) Department which remained effective w.e.f. 26.12.2015 and wherein it appears in the aforesaid Notification dated 19.05.2017 that the married daughter(s) under any circumstances shall not come under the purview of the die-in-harness scheme
AND Now, therefore the State Government has decided not to consider the representations submitted by the petitioner Smt. Debashri Chakraborty w/o. Shri Sushanta Chakraborty resident of East Pratapgarh, PS-East Agartala, PO-Pratapgarh, Agartala, West Tripura for providing her Government job under die-in-harness scheme as the aforesaid petitioner is a married woman and is not eligible for obtaining Government job under the die-in-harness scheme."
5. The sole ground for rejection of the petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground thus was that as a married daughter of the deceased Government servant the petitioner was not eligible for such appointment. In this context, reliance was placed on the said notification dated 19.05.2017 which specifies that under no circumstances a married daughter would come within the purview of the die-in-harness scheme.
6. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the said order dated 11.02.2019 and a portion of the said notification dated 19.05.2017. Appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. P. Roy Barman submitted that the original scheme of compassionate appointment formulated under notification dated 26.12.2015 did not exclude a married daughter from the purview of the scheme. The amendments made in the said scheme by the subsequent notification dated 19.05.2017 could not be applied retrospectively. Since the mother of the petitioner had died on 07.11.2016, her application was governed by the scheme formulated under the notification dated 26.12.2015. Alternatively, it was contended that the provision in the notification dated 19.05.2017 to the effect that a married daughter under no circumstances would come within the purview of the scheme is unconstitutional, arbitrary and discriminatory. In this context, counsel has relied on severa
