Jyoti Biswas vs State Of Tripura And Anr

[1] Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2.

[2] By means of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who has applied for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme on account of death of her mother, namely Renubala Biswas who was serving as a peon under the District Administration, West Tripura has challenged denial of appointment. On 13.11.1999, Renubala Biswas died prematurely in harness and in this respect, the petitioner has produced the death certificate, Anenxure-2 to the writ petition. There is no controversy that Renubala Biswas is survived by her two sons, namely Sri Arjun Biswas and Sri Biplab Biswas and 5[five] daughters, namely Smt. Jyoti Biswas, Smt. Karuna Biswas, Smt. Archana Biswas, Smt. Rina Biswas and Smt. Mira Biswas. On obtaining no objection from the other family members, the petitioner had applied for the compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme for death of her mother in harness. All the requisite documents were produced along with the application. Even the respondents had carried out an investigation through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania Revenue Circle. From the report of the Deputy Collector, Jirania Revenue Circle dated 12.09.2000, it would be apparent that the petitioner has the educational qualification and is found eligible for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. Even in the report, it has been stated that Arjun Biswas, brother of the petitioner has been serving under the Border Security Force, BSF in short, but as Arjun Biswas could not be interviewed, the family income from all sources was not ascertained. Since one of the brothers, namely Arjun Biswas has been serving in the BSF, the respondents by the memorandum under No.F.1(3)-GA(P&T)/98(L) dated 17.06.2000, Annexure-R/2 to the reply filed by the respondents, issued by the General Administration (P&T) Department had turned down the prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Paras-2 & 3 of the said memorandum dated 17.06.2000 provide as under:

"2. Clarification have been sought by the different Departments as to the admissibility of the benefit of the financial assistance under „Die-in-Harness Scheme‟ when there is an earning member in the family.

It is clarified that if an earning member is present, the family is not entitled for employment and hence the question of financial assistance, when no employable member is present, does not arise. Therefore, if any earning member is present in a family, the family would not be entitled to either employment or financial assistance under the „Die-in- Harness Scheme."

[3] Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents had issued the said memorandum without understanding the meaning of the family which has evolved and has been specified by the subsequent memorandum issued under the die-in-harness scheme. The family should be the immediate family left by the deceased employee. Even the married son or daughter if they are not living in the family, he or she cannot be taken as the member of the family for purpose of applying the memorandum dated 17.06.2006. Since Arjun Biswas has been living separately from the family much before the death of their mother, Renubala Biswas, he cannot be treated as the member of the family left by the deceased employee. In this regard, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has brought to the notice of this court a representation filed by the petitioner to the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura stating that her elder brother has separated himself immediately after death of her father and now he has no relation with the family. Even, he does not live in the state. The younger brother is minor. So there is no earning member in their family. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the said statement was not properly framed but from the report submitted by the Deputy Collector, Jirania Revenue Circle it can be gathered that nobody does know actually what Arjun Biswas, the elder brother of the petitioner, earns. It is an indicator that he is not contributing anything in the family and the family is completely out of contact with that son of the deceased employee. Therefore, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has robustly contended that the family must be deemed to excluding Arjun Biswas who is living separately since much before the death of the deceased employee.

[4] Mr. P. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that even in the ration card, the name of Arjun Biswas is still there and even in the survival certificate his name does figure. On the basis of this document, Mr. Maishan, learned counsel has submitted that no better document could be produced by the petitioner to show that Arjun Biswas, elder brother of the petitioner, has separated himself from the family much before the death of the deceased employee. Thus, on the face of the records as referred, this court may not direct the respondents to consider the compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Such direction perhaps, according to Mr. Maishan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would not be within the die-in- harness scheme.

[5] Having given an anxious consideration to the fact that has surfaced from the writ petition and the reply as well as from the rejoinder, this court is of the view that the name of Arjun Biswas has found place in the survival certificate legally being the legal survivor of the deceased employee and that cannot be the proof whether the person is living with the family or not. Similarly, it appears that the ration card was prepared during the lifetime of Renubala Biswas but truly, the ration card was not separated. No records to this effect have at least been produced. In an earlier decision of this court it has been held that the entry in the ration card cannot also fully be relied for purpose of coming to the conclusion that someone was living separately from the family. It can be only ascertained by a physical inquiry. Having given due attention to the physical report as produced by the Deputy Collector, Jirania Circle it appears to this court that Arjun Biswas was not a member of the family left by the deceased employee. He has separated himself from the family much before the death of the deceased employee. That apart, the die-in-harness scheme is a humanitarian programme of the state to ameliorate the distress of the family suddenly disrupted by death of a serving government employee. As such, the strict interpretation of the every clause is not desirable and the approach that should be more human is how the distress can be ameliorated as early as possible, so that the family can tide over the financial crisis. Unfortunately, what has happened in this case is that two decades have elapsed but no employment has been made. This delay could be waived, if the petitioner is entitled to get the compassionate job as it is apparent in the face of records that for the arbitrary action of the respondents, the petitioner could not get job as yet.

In view of this, the respondents, particularly, the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner under the die-in-harness scheme within a period of 3 [three] months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order without fail.

[6] Having observed thus, this petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.