Gopa Debnath vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Rule.

Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Additional Government Advocate waived Rule on behalf of the respondents.

Heard learned counsel for the parties finally.

The petitioner is a married daughter of the deceased Government servant who died while in-harness on 11.07.2017. She applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 21.06.2018. Her application was rejected by the impugned order dated 28.08.2019 which reads as under :

"Sir,

I am directed to inform you that your application for job was scrutinized

by the department, but cannot be considered for providing any benefit as you were found to be married daughter of the deceased Government employee & residing separately with your husband.

As per policy of the Government to extend employment to the surviving members of the deceased Government Employee, the married daughter is not considered as dependent family member of the deceased Government employee, and as such your application is regretted."

The impugned order has cited the reasons of the applicant being a married daughter of the Government servant as well as residing separately with her husband for rejecting her request. The question whether a married daughter of a deceased Government servant can claim the benefit of die-in-harness scheme came up for consideration before this Court in case of Smt. Debashri Chakraborty versus the State of Tripura and others in WP(C) No.562 of 2019 decided on 18th December, 2019. The Court considered a provision in the Government scheme which provided that "married daughter(s) under any circumstances shall not come under the purview of die-in-harness scheme." Referring to and relying upon the large number of decisions of various High Courts including Full Bench judgments, it was held and observed as under :

"23. In view of such decisions of various High Courts across the country and almost unanimity of opinion on the issue, I have no hesitation in holding that the following portion of the notification dated 19.05.2017 is unconstitutional: "Married daughter(s) under any circumstances shall not come under the purview of Die-in-harness Scheme."

Consequently, it is declared that the scheme of die-in-harness formulated by the State under notification dated 26.12.2015 as modified and clarified under notification dated 19.05.2017 would not exclude a married daughter from the purview of the scheme. In other words, even a married daughter would be entitled to make an application for appointment on compassionate basis which would be decided on its own merits within the parameters of the scheme. Resultantly, impugned order dated 11.02.2019 is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh and dispose it of on merits. This shall be done within a period of 4(four) months from today."

The order for rejection of the petitioner's application was passed on 28.08.2019 i.e. before the decision in case of Smt. Debashri Chakraborty (supra). Obviously, therefore, the Government authorities did not have the benefit of the views of the Court on the said issue and undoubtedly proceeded on the basis of the above quoted provision in the scheme for compassionate appointment. It is, therefore, that in the impugned order the main emphasis for rejection of the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment is on the fact that she is a married daughter of the deceased Government servant. This objection must be overruled. This however does not mean that the petitioner can claim compassionate appointment without fulfilling other conditions of the scheme which the competent authority is not examined. The reference to the petitioner living separately with her husband must be seen as a passing remark, without any by parte inquiry in consultation of the petitioner on this issue.

The respondents, therefore, must reconsider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment without bringing into consideration the issue of her being a married daughter. However, the authorities would be free to examine all other aspects of the scheme including the question of her being a dependent on the deceased Government servant at the time of his death.

For such purpose, impugned order dated 28.08.2019 is set aside. The respondents shall take a fresh decision on the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment. Final decision shall be taken within a period of four months from today.

Petition is disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.