Akash Sinha vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to appoint him in a post commensurate to his qualification under the Die-in-Harness Scheme on account of death of his father namely Ashok Sinha who expired on 08.02.2017 [see Annexure-B to the writ petition]. The said employee left behind his wife (Baby Sinha) and two sons namely Ujjal Sinha and Akash Sinha (the petitioner). Immediately after death of his father, the petitioner filed an application for such compassionate appointment with documents as required by the respondents. But the respondents did not consider his case and hence, being persuaded by the emerged circumstances, he has approached this court.

The respondents by filing the reply have stated that the petitioner is not covered under the Die-in-harness scheme which has been brought in force on 08.02.2017. That apart, the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Unakoti, Kailashahar forwarded to the Director of Panchayat on 04.06.2019 proffers as under :

(i) The mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Baby Sinha is a Govt. Employee posted as a Panchayat Secretary of Fulbarikandi Gram Panchayat under Gournagar RD Block. Her date of superannuation is on 31.01.2021.

(ii) As per family Ration Card, the petitioner Sri Akash Sinha resides with his mother Smt. Baby Sinha who is a Govt. employee in the same household. There is already one Govt. employee living in his family i.e. his mother Smt. Baby Sinha. It is to be mentioned here that he had prayed for issuance of separate ration card to the SDM, Kailashahar.

(iii) As per death certificate of the deceased employee, Ashok Sinha died on 08.02.2017 and the petitioner had applied for job on 31.03.2017."

That was the basis of denying the appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme, even if, the petitioner is eligible for appointment.

Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been living separately for long from the family of the deceased employee and as such, he is entitled to get the compassionate appointment inasmuch as the other requirement has been met by him. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has relied on two documents viz. Survival Certificate dated 21.03.2017 and the photo copy of family Ration Card. That apart, the petitioner has submitted various other documents in support of his educational qualification, status as the permanent resident of Tripura, Birth Certificate, marks-sheet, no-objection certificate from his mother (Baby Sinha) and his brother (Ujjal Sinha). He has also furnished the declaration on his obligation of maintaining the mother and minor brother, if he is so appointed under the Die-in-harness scheme. According to Mr. Pal, learned counsel, as the petitioner is now living separately from the family of the deceased employee, he be considered to get the said benefit.

Mr. D. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents have pointed out that on 31.03.2017, the petitioner himself has submitted a representation stating that his father, Ashok Sinha was an ex-Panchayat Secretary of Gournagar R.D. Block. But he died due to Cancer while in service. Thus, he has prayed for job as his mother may also retire from service very soon. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned G.A. has contended that the said fact has been admitted by the petitioner and hence, no rejoinder has been filed against those averment and the report. His mother namely Baby Sinha is still in service. Die-in-harness scheme provides that any member of the family left by the deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme if no one is in the employment in the family. As it is apparent in the face of the records that the mother of the petitioner is in the employment, the petitioner cannot get any benefit out of the said scheme. That apart, when the deceased employee namely Ashok Sinha died, the petitioner was part of the family of the deceased employee and that is a serious embargo for having any appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme.

Having observed thus, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.