The compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme requires strict adherence to age and application timelines, negating claims based on delays beyond stipulated periods.

JUDGMENT

Akil Kureshi; CJ.:--

This Appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13.02.2019 in W.P. (C) No.717 of 2018.

2. Brief facts are as under:

The father of the petitioner was employed as a Pump Operator in the PWD department of the Government of Tripura. While in service, he died on 07.03.2009. At the time of the death of his father, the petitioner was below 17 years of age. His date of birth being 10.12.1992, he crossed the age of 18 years on 10.12.2010. On 21.08.2012, the petitioner applied to the Government for appointment on compassionate grounds. On 01.04.2013, the department conveyed to the petitioner that he cannot be offered compassionate appointment. However, he may apply for financial assistance under the Scheme framed by the Government. It seems that the petitioner pursued with his application for compassionate appointment which was eventually rejected by a formal communication dated 07.06.2017 issued by the Deputy Secretary, PWD. In this communication, it was stated as under:

“As per policy of the Government for employment under Die-in-harness Scheme, your application was duly considered, but finally, it was not approved as you were under age on the date of death of your father as per Admit Card of Tripura Board of Secondary Education submitted by you with your application earlier. Even you remains under age with one year relaxation from the date of death of the Government employee.”

3. The petitioner thereupon approached the High Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dismissed his petition observing that after a lapse of almost 10 years, the petitioner has approached the Court. It was observed that even considering from the date of communication of rejection dated 07.06.2017, the petition was filed more than a year later. The petition was dismissed primarily on the ground of delay and laches.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge had committed a serious error. There was no delay on part of the petitioner in approaching the High Court. The department had committed an error in rejecting his application after long time. The Government Scheme for compassionate appointment envisaged relaxation of the terms of the Scheme. The petitioner was minor when his father died. He was not aware about his rights under the Scheme. No Government authority approached the family of the deceased employee making them aware about the terms of the Scheme. In this context, our attention was drawn to a Notification dated 26.12.2015 issued by the Government which provides that whenever the department gets information about the death of any of the employees while in service, immediately the family members of the deceased should be communicated the terms of the Scheme for compassionate appointment or financial assistance available to them.

5. Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of Division Bench in case of Shri Subham Dey v. The State of Tripura and others (W.A. No.45 of 2014 decided on 22.11.2018) and of the Supreme Court in case of Batuklal Girijashankar Tarwadi v. Union of India & Anr., reported in Civil Appeal No.4220 of 1994.

6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate, Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee submitted that the petitioner was below 17 years on the date of death of the Government servant. The Scheme framed by the Government for compassionate appointment provides that as long as the family member seek