Allowed

Ruma Gan Bardhan v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC16 Aug 2017WP(C)/692/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner sought appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme following her husband's death. The court directed the respondents to appoint her using a conditional undertaking, requiring her to financially maintain her co-respondent sister-in-law.

What did the court decide?

Directive to appoint the petitioner within three months subject to an undertaking to financially maintain the respondent No. 4. Petition otherwise allowed.

Ruma Gan Bardhan Vs the State of Tripura and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C)692 of 2017

¶3

Smt. Ruma Gan Bardhan, wife of late Madhab Bardhan, daughter of Sri Manik Gan, at present residing in her father’s house at South Matabari, Udaipur, P.S. R.K. Pur, District : Gomati, PIN : 799013

¶4

…………Petitioner – Vs –

¶5

The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Department of Home Affairs, New Secretariat Building, P.S. New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799006

¶6

The Director General of Police, Fire Brigade Chowmohani, P.S. West Agartala, PIN : 799001, District : West Tripura

¶7

The Superintendent of Police, District : Gomati, P.S. R.K. Pur, Udaipur, Tripura, PIN : 799120

¶8

Smt. Khuku Rani Bardhan, wife of Sri Swadesh Bardhan, Village & P.O. Jamjuri, Udaipur, P.S. Kakraban, District : Gomati, PIN : 799013

¶9

………… Respondents

¶10

B E F O R E

¶11

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶12

For the petitioner : Mr. Soumen Saha, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Sekhar Dutta, Advocate Mr. K. Nath, Advocate Date of delivery of : 16.08.2017 Judgment and order Whether fit for reporting : NO

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

WP(C)692 of 2017

¶15

Judgment and Order (Oral)

¶16

Heard Mr. Soumen Saha, learned counsel appearing

¶17

for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Sekhar Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4.

¶18

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 to give her appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme for death of her husband namely Madhab Bardhan on 15.06.2016. Her husband was working as the Constable under the Police Department. Immediately after death of her husband in harness, the petitioner applied for appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme. She had filed the application in the format as provided by the respondent No.3 with all the testimonials except one requisite document i.e. no-objection certificate from the family members. For that reason, the respondents No.1,2 & 3 are not issuing the appointment letter under the Die-in-harness scheme in favour of the petitioner.

¶19

In this regard, the position taken by the respondents as reflected in Paras 10 & 13 of their reply filed on 08.08.2017. Those are reproduced hereunder :

¶20

“But in the instant case the Petitioner failed to submit the no objection certificate. In absence of the no objection certificate, if the Petitioner is otherwise eligible also, the Answering Respondents could not proceed further as no objection certificate is one of the essential required documents under the scheme.

¶21

Copy of the application, dated 30.11.2016 is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure A.

¶22

11. That, the contention of Para 6 of the Writ Petition is matter of record. However, the Answering Respondents

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

WP(C)692 of 2017

¶25

submit, that, the State Government vide Notification, dated, 26.12.2015, revised all the earlier Memorandum/Notification in respect to the appointment for job under the die-in-harness scheme and accordingly it was published in Tripura Gazette.

¶26

12. That, in respect to the contention of Para 7 of the Writ Petition it is submitted, that, the Answering Respondents have nothing to make any comment as the contentions are purely private in nature relating to the personal affairs of the Petitioner and others.

¶27

13. That, the contention of Para 8 of the Writ Petition are matter of record. However, the Answering Respondents, submit, that, it is true, that, the Petitioner had submitted the application, dated, 07.10.2016 appending (i) copy of Survival Certificate, (ii) Death Certificate of Lt. Constable, (iii) Madhyamik Admit Card, (iv) Employment Exchange registration in respect of her, (v) Mark Sheet of H.S (+2 Stage) Examination, showing herself passed and (vi) Family Ration Card, for extending service benefit compassionate employment under die-in-harness scheme owing to death of her husband (i.e, Lt. Constable) to her. ”

¶28

From bare reading of those paragraphs as reproduced it would appear that as the petitioner could not file the noobjection certificate she was not given the appointment. The only surviving person in the family beyond the petitioner is the respondent No.4 and she is supposed to issue the no-objection certificate. But she has not.

¶29

The respondent No.4 by filing the reply has disputed the allegations levelled by the petitioner against her. The petitioner has submitted that the respondent No.4 used to torture her physically and mentally and in consequence thereof, she had left the house of her husband.

¶30

Be that as it may, those aspects, if appreciated, would appear extraneous to the controversy. But the respondent No.4 has admitted clearly that she has not issued the no-objection certificate. However, in Para-10 of her reply she has asserted as under :

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

¶33

“That in view of the facts and circumstances narrated herein above your Lordship would be kind enough to pass appropriate order protecting the financial interest of the answering Respondent No.4 so the Respondent No.4 and her family members can maintain themselves.”

¶34

The concern of the respondent No.4 as surfaces from her reply is that as she was dependent on the income of her son, the deceased employee, her financial interest shall be protected.

¶35

Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1,2 & 3 has submitted that the respondents will not have any reservation, if the no-objection certificate issued by the respondent No.4, is submitted to the respondents No.1,2 & 3 . It is also not in dispute that the respondent No.4 is not eligible to get a government employment under the Die-in-harness scheme. In view of that, her issuance of the no-objection certificate hardly matters.

¶36

Mr. Sekhar Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 has clearly submitted that if the petitioner resides with the respondent No.4, she would be the happiest person in this world. In response to that statement Mr. Soumen Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is also willing to live with the respondent No.4.

¶37

Having regard to what has emerged, the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 is hereby directed to appoint the petitioner in a post commensurate to the petitioner’s qualification under the Die-inharness scheme within a period of 3(three) months from today after obtaining from her an undertaking that she would maintain the respondent No.4 by giving adequate financial support for a decent living. It shall also be mentioned in the said undertaking

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

¶40

that in the event of breach of such obligation, the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 shall be with authority to recall the appointment as is contemplated to be made under the Die-in-harness scheme.

¶41

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands

¶42

allowed.

¶43

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 & 3 for doing the needful.

JUDGE

Sabyasachi.B

Page 5 of 5

Ruma Gan Bardhan v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ruma Gan Bardhan 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

Abdul Haque Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Khagendra Ch. Deb Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Rajmohan Debnath Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tapasi Ghosh Saha Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Mallika Datta Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Partha Sarathi Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.