The exclusion of married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme is unconstitutional as it violates the principles of equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - Though the facts differ from case to case, all these writ appeals involve similar question pertaining to exclusion of married daughters from the die-in-harness scheme of the State Government. Therefore, they have been heard together and would be disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, we shall refer to the facts arising from WA No. 80 of 2020 (The State of Tripura & Ors. v. Smt. Debashri Chakraborty) which is treated as a lead matter.

2. The facts are as under:

Smt. Anita Chakraborty, mother of respondent Debashri Chakraborty was a Group-D staff in the office of the Superintendent of Police (Procurement) under the Department of Home, Government of Tripura. She got the job on compassionate ground since her husband Shekhar Chakraborty died while in service. Said Anita Chakraborty expired on 07.11.2016 leaving behind two daughters namely Smt. Popi Chakraborty and respondent Debashri Chakraborty. Debashri Chakraborty applied to the State Government seeking appointment on compassionate ground as per the die-in-harness scheme of the State Government on 28.06.2017. Since her application was kept pending without any decision, she filed W.P(C) No.1136 of 2018 in this Court which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this court by order dated 07.12.2018 in which the following directions were issued:

'(1) Petitioner's representation shall be considered by the appropriate authority and decided expeditiously in accordance with law and positively within a period of 4(four) weeks from today.

(2) If so required and desired, it shall be open to the writ petitioner to place additional materials in support of earlier representation, if any.

(3) Additionally, if so desired, petitioner may also request for affording opportunity of hearing.

(4) The authority shall positively pass the order in the aforesaid terms, by assigning reasons and copy thereof shall also be supplied to the writ petitioner.

(5) Liberty is reserved to the writ petitioner to independently approach the Court for assailing the order, if so required and desired on the same and subsequent cause of action, in accordance with law.

(6) All issues are left open.'

3. Pursuant to the said order of the learned Single Judge, the State respondents who are appellants herein, considered the representation of Smt. Debashri Chakraborty and passed an 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 from 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.'

4. It would appear from the said order of the State Government (appellant herein) that sole ground of rejection of respondent's application was that as a married daughter she was not eligible to compassionate appointment under die-in-harness scheme because notification dated 19.05.2