Allowed

Kusum Tripura v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC6 Nov 2017WP(C)/704/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment due to the death of his father, a PWD employee, the Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment within three months after clarifying his physical residence status.

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.

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

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C) NO.704 OF 2017

¶3

Shri Kusum Tripura,

¶4

S/O Late Janardhan Tripura, resident of South Manu Bankul, P.O. Bishnupur (Manubazar) South Tripura, Pin-799143

¶5

…………Petitioner

¶6

– Vs –

¶7

1. The State of Tripura ,

¶8

represented by the Secretary, Pubic Works Department (R & B), Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District:West Tripura 799006.

¶9

2. The Deputy Secretary ,

¶10

Public Works Department (R & B), Government of Tripura, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex

¶11

District-West Tripura 799006

¶12

3. The Chief Engineer, Government of Tripura , PWD (R & B), New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District: West Tripura, 799006

¶13

4. The Secretary to the Government of Tripura , Finance Department, Capital Complex, P.O. Capital Complex, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala 799010

¶14

………… Respondents.

¶15

B E F O R E

¶16

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶17

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Senior Advocate Ms. A. Banik, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. K. Nath, Advocate

¶18

Page 1 of 5

¶19

WP(C) NO.704 OF 2017

¶20

Date of hearing and delivery of Judgment and order : 06.11.2017

¶21

Whether fit for reporting : No

¶22

Judgment and Order (ORAL)

¶23

Heard Mr. A.K. Bhomwik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. A. Banik, learned counsel appearing on the instruction of Mr. R. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶24

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this Court to direct the respondents to give him compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme for untimely death of his father ,namely, Janardhan Tripura who was serving as the helper under the Public Works Department (Road & Building). According to the petitioner he is covered by the die in harness scheme as framed by the state.

¶25

The facts are mostly admitted that Janardhan Tripura died in harness on 22.06.2015 leaving behind the petitioner, other 2(two) sons, his wife and one daughter as it is apparent from the Survival Certificate dated 19.08.2015 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom South

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

WP(C) NO.704 OF 2017

¶28

Tripura. In due course, the petitioner made the application for compassionate appointment claiming him suitable for appointment in the Government establishment as the petitioner has a qualification of Class VIII passed and within the maximum age limit for the appointment. The petitioner had also filed ‘ No Objection ’ from the other dependents of the deceased employee. But the respondents did not consider his case as yet.

¶29

Being aggrieved by their action, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction on the respondents to appoint him under the die-in-harness scheme and also to quash the decision contained in the communication No.F.6(1)-PWD(E-II)/2017/2275 dated 22.05.2017 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby it was communicated to the petitioner that his case was not fit for consideration for employment under the die in harness scheme showing the following other reasons:

¶30

“ On the basis of your earlier application, the proposal for employment under Die-inharness Scheme was processed to the Government, but it was regretted with the reason that your name was not included in the Family Ration Card belonged to Lt. Janardhan Tripura, your father.

¶31

As per policy of the Government, employment/financial assistance should be extended only to the dependent surviving members of the family of deceased Government employee.

¶32

Page 3 of 5

¶33

WP(C) NO.704 OF 2017

¶34

Now, you have submitted a fresh application from which it appears that five more names including your name has been included in the Family Ration Card after death of your father which was not existing in the same Ration Card as submitted by you earlier .

¶35

By filing the reply, the respondents have just reiterated their said stand and on the face of such reiteration, this court was persuaded to pass the order dated 21.08.2017.

¶36

The relevant part of the said order reads as under:

¶37

“ The respondents have filed their reply but on perusing the reply it cannot clearly be gathered whether the petitioner was living physically with the deceased employee, namely, Janardhan Tripura at the time of his death. The respondent shall cause further inquiry through the SDM, Sabroom to get that aspect clarified.”

¶38

By filing an additional affidavit, the respondents have produced the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under No.-66/F.24(6)/SDM/SBM/CON(JOB)/2017 dated 14.09.2017 (Annexure-I to the additional affidavit). The SubDivisional Magistrate, Sabroom, South Tripura who filed this report to the Deputy Secretary, P.W.D (R&B) Agartala has clearly stated as follows:

¶39

“ It appears from the enquiry report that Sri Kusum Tripura has been living physically with his parents since his birth although family ration card was separated at the time of death of his father. Sri Bipi Singh Tripura, S/OGopan Kumar Tripura and Sri Shyamal Tripura,

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

WP(C) NO.704 OF 2017

¶42

S/O Subiram Tripura of Bogirath Roaja Para stated that Sri Kusum Tripura, S/O Lt. Janardhan Tripura is physically living together with his parents prior to death of his father.”

¶43

Thus, on the basis of that observation, on which the petitioner was denied the compassionate appointment, it has been categorically asserted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sabroom that the petitioner was all through physically living with the deceased employee. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the petitioner is unemployed and there is no employed person in the family to earn the living. In view of that, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner in the appropriate grade under the die-in-harness scheme within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order.

¶44

In terms of the above, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

suhanjit

Page 5 of 5

WP(C) NO.704 OF 2017

Kusum Tripura v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kusum Tripura 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabindra Ch. Das Vs the L.a.Collector (West Tripura) and Anr.

Abhijit Barua Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Jamal Hossain Vs Gita Paul and Anr.

Sujata Debbarma Vs State of Tripura and Ors.

Manasa Das and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Shreya Acharjee Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.