The court affirmed that the age restrictions in compassionate employment applications under the Die-in-Harness scheme can be relaxed based on compelling family circumstances, emphasizing the scheme's intent to alleviate financial hardships.

JUDGMENT

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J. - By means of this contempt petition filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the petitioner has alleged non compliance of the order dated 13.12.2021 rendered by this Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.291 of 2021 [The State of Tripura v. Subhojit Shil].

2. We have heard Mr.P.K.Pal, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr.D.Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate, appearing along with Mr.S.Saha, advocate for the respondent contemnors.

3. The factual context of the case is as under:

By filing WP(C) No.572 of 2019, petitioner Subhojit Shil challenged the communication dated 25.09.2018 under which the officer on special duty for Director of Elementary Education, Government of Tripura conveyed to him that his request for providing employment under the Die in Harness scheme could not be granted as he was not eligible for employment under the said scheme. He was informed that instead of employment under the scheme he would be eligible for one time financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh) for which he could apply. The background facts are that petitioner is a son of one Smt. Gita Debnath who died in harness on 24.11.2017 while she was working as an assistant teacher in the department of education, Government of Tripura. She left behind the petitioner who is her elder son, her husband and another son. When she died, petitioner was aged 16 years 10 months and 22 days as per his birth certificate. The father of the petitioner did not have a steady job who was working as a contractor in some private agency. Therefore, after the death of his mother petitioner was in urgent need of employment to maintain the family consisting of his unemployed father and younger brother. He was also eligible to be appointed to a class-III or class-IV post in terms of his educational qualification. Therefore, he applied for a job on compassionate ground. On 30.01.2018, he submitted required documents along with his application. Respondents, however, turned down his application by the impugned communication dated 25.09.2018. Aggrieved petitioner, therefore, approached this court by filing WP (C) 572 of 2019.

4. Counsel of the petitioner argued before the learned Single Judge that main ground for rejection of his petition was that petitioner was under age on the date of the death of his mother. Petitioner's counsel contended before the learned Single Judge that the Die- in-Harness scheme prescribed that the minimum age of the dependent of the Government servant shall not be less than 17 years for being eligible for employment on compassionate ground under the scheme. But in the present case, age of the petitioner fell short barely by 01 month and few days. Counsel contended that in view of the object of the Die-in-Harness scheme, the respondent could have relaxed the provision for valid reasons. Counsel of the petitioner also contended that the respondent never disputed the fact that petitioner was in urgent need of an employment after the death of his mother who was the sole bread winner of the family and who died in harness leaving the entire family in deep financial crisis. Counsel contended that in similar situation, this court issued direction to the state to give employment on compassionate ground.

5. To nourish his contention, counsel relied on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this court