Allowed

Gopal Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC9 Jun 2017WP(C)/178/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the refusal to appoint the petitioner under the Die-in-Harness Scheme despite his qualification. The court held that merely holding a separate ration card does not establish separate living if physical inquiry finds no adverse inference, ordering the respondents to appoint the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme within three months.

Gopal Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.178 of 2017

¶2

Noting by Officer or Advocate

¶3

Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or No Proceedings with signature BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA 09.06.2017 Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to provide the petitioner an appointment under Die-in-Harness Scheme commensurate to her qualification. The petitioner has categorically stated that he has the minimum required qualification for the government job. The facts are mostly admitted. The father of the petitioner, namely Rakhal Das who was working as the Night-Guard under the respondent No.2 died in harness on 09.01.2015. The said employee is survived by Smt. Manju Rani Das [wife], Sri Gopal Das [son], Smt. Malati Das [daughter], Smt. Shilpi Das and Smt. Mousumi Das [the daughter-in-law and the granddaughter of the deceased employee, namely Rakhal Das] as evinced from the survival certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District, Tripura on 03.03.2015, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition. Within the stipulated time, the petitioner had applied for job and due inquiry was conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District at the instance of the competent authority. Accordingly, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District by his report dated 01.10.2015, Annexure-1 to the reply filed by the respondents, has observed that the petitioner is entitled to get the government job under die-in-harness scheme. But the respondents refused to act on the said recommendation on the ground that the petitioner was not a member of the family of the deceased government servant at the time of his death. By the communication

¶4

Sujay

¶5

Page 1 of 3

¶6

W.P.(C) No.178 of 2017

¶7

Noting by Officer or Advocate

¶8

Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or

¶9

No Proceedings with signature

¶10

dated 07.12.2015, Annexure-4 to the reply filed by the respondents, the petitioner was apprised accordingly. It appears from the scrutiny of the records that even the petitioner’s documents were dully verified from the authorities who issued such certificates.

¶11

Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was living with the deceased employee on the date of his death and was very much part of his family, but for having some additional benefits from various agencies, he opened a separate ration card which has been, later on, cancelled at the instance of the petitioner. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has referred to the averments of the respondents in Para-9 of their reply which reads under:

¶12

“It may be the fact that, Lt. Rakhal Das, deceased employee and his son, i.e., the petitioner herein, residing in same residence/place but they had separate ration card. The answering respondents also submit, that, at the time of death of the Rakhal Das, i.e., the father of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was not available with the ration card of his father.”

¶13

From the report dated 01.10.2015 of the SubDivisional Magistrate, Udaipur, Gomati District it appears that there is no adverse comment about the petitioner’s living in the family of the deceased employee. This court has already observed in one of its previous decisions that mere having a separate ration card may not all the times justify that someone is/was living outside the family. That has to be decided on the physical facts which could alone finally determine whether a person is living in the same family or not. It appears further that even the physical inquiry conducted by the SDM, Udaipur did not raise any adverse inference in this regard, though he was the person who was to come to such inference after inquiry. That apart in Para-9 of the reply, as pointed out by Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel, the respondents

¶14

Sujay

¶15

Page 2 of 3

¶16

W.P.(C) No.178 of 2017

¶17

Noting by Officer or Advocate

¶18

Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or No Proceedings with signature have clearly stated that the petitioner might have been living with the deceased employee.

¶19

Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, in terms of the definition of family provided by the memorandum under No.F.1(1)GA(P&T)/92(L) dated 24.09.2011 has submitted that since the petitioner having a separate ration card, he cannot be treated as living with the deceased employee inasmuch as the said memorandum while placing the revised definition of family, inter alia, has been postulated that the legitimate children excluding the married son or married daughter or daughter-in-law, if he/she lives separately from other members of the family will get the benefit of die-in-harness scheme.

¶20

Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has submitted that it is not denied that the petitioner is married and he has having a separate ration card.

¶21

Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the basic physical inquiry has not established that the petitioner was living outside the family of the deceased employee and as such, the objection that has been raised by the respondents cannot be sustained. As consequence thereof, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner, commensurate to his qualification, under the die-in-harness scheme after observing the formalities within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the respondents, particularly the respondent No.2.

¶22

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

¶23

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

Sujay

¶26

Page 3 of 3

Gopal Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Das v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramaprasad Das Vs State of Tripura and 3 Ors.

Ajit Kr. Sen and Anr. Vs The Executive Engineer, South Division-111.

The State of Tripura and Anr. Vs Samsur Nahar Begum and Ors.

Anita Paul and 13 Ors. Vs State of Tripura and Ors.

Rakesh Debbarma Vs the Chairman, T.K.V.I and Ors.

Helpline Welfare Organisation Repdt. by Secretary Sri Ashok Kr. Ghosh Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.