Karim Uddin vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Petitioner is the dependant of a deceased Government servant. He has challenged the decision of the Government to refuse appointment on compassionate ground since the Government servant died during extended service post retirement.

[2] Brief facts are as under:

The father of the petitioner was a regular employee as a Farm Worker working under the Superintendent of Agricultural Sub-Division, Udaipur. He crossed the age of superannuation on 28.02.2018. However, by an order dated 16.01.2018 his service was extended for a period of three months w.e.f. 01.03.2018 till 31.05.2018. The order of extension of service reads as under:

"In the interest o public service, the services of Md. Adbul Samed, Farm Worker is hereby extended for a perod of 3(three) months w.e.f 01.03.2018 to 31.05.2018 (A.N) beyond the date of his retirement from the Govt. service on superannuation on 28.02.2018(A.N) on the same terms and conditions."

[3] During this extended period of service the Government servant expired on 24.03.2018. The petitioner as one of the sons of the deceased therefore, applied to the State Government for appointment on compassionate ground which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 15.02.2019 in following manner.

"Sir,

In response to your application dated 13.06.2018, this is to inform you that your appeal for Govt. job under die-in-harness scheme has not been considered in accordance with the guidelines of GA(P & T) Department's Memo N.F.1(1)-GA(P &T)/2005 dated, 16-05-2005 since your father Md. Abdul Chamed, Farm Worker was expired during the extension period of his service."

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the service of the petitioner was extended beyond the age of retirement, there remained no distinction between him and any other Government servant. In other words, the petitioner's status as a Government servant continued. His relationship with the employer was not snapped. Since he died during such extended period of service, his dependents would be eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the scheme of the Government. Only ground for rejection was that the Government servant did expire during extended period of service. Counsel drew my attention to the die-in-harness scheme framed by the Government under a notification dated 26.12.2015 in which no distinction was made between a Government servant who dies during regular service as against one who dies during extended service. In contrast, he also drew my attention to the subsequent die-in-harness scheme framed by the Government under notification dated 02.03.2019 in which the cases of Government servant dying during extended service have been specifically excluded from the purview of the scheme. He submitted that the said scheme of 2019 was not in operation when the petitioner's father expired. His case was therefore, covered by the die-in-harness scheme, 2015.

[5] On the other hand Mr. D. Sarkar, learned panel lawyer submitted that the Government has consistently taken a view that the die-in-harness scheme will not apply in a case where the Government servant dies during the extended service period. He referred to a memorandum dated 16.05.2005 in which it was clarified that the benefit of die-in-harness scheme will not be available to the family of a Government servant who dies on extension of service after actual date of retirement.

[6] In 2015 scheme Clause-1 which refers to to eligibility criteria provides that die-in-harness scheme shall be applicable to the dependant family members of a Government servant serving under the State Government or teaching and non-teaching employees of Privately Managed Government Aided Schools. This scheme thus does not specifically exclude cases of Government servant dying during extended service. However, under this Office Memorandum dated 16.05.2005 this position was made amply clear. Contents of the said office memorandum read as under:

"A doubt has been raised whether the benefit of the die-in-harness scheme will be available to the family of a Government servant who dies while on extension of service or re-employment.

It is hereby clarified that the benefit of the die-in-harness scheme shall not be available to the family of a Government servant who dies while on extension of service after the actual date of retirement on superannuation or one re-employment."

[7] As per this clarification thus the view of the Government was that the benefit of the die-in-harness scheme would not be available to the family of a Government servant who dies while on extension of service after actual date of retirement on superannuation or on reemployment. This position has been made explicit in the later scheme of 2019 in which the definition of the Government servant would mean a Government servant appointed on regular basis but would exclude those working on daily wage or casual or apprentice or ad-hoc or on contract or re-employment basis or extension basis. Thus, Government servants on re-employment or extension of service dies during such period, the benefit of the scheme of 2019 would not be available to his family.

[8] In my opinion the said clarificatory office memorandum dated 16.05.2005 represents the intent of the Government not to cover the cases of dependent of those Government servants who died while in extension of service after normal age of retirement. It may be that the scheme of 2015 superseded all previous notifications or circulars issued by the Government. This, however, would not obliterate the Government stand circulated through clarificatory memorandum. The specific provisions made under the scheme of 2019 cannot be read as to mean that in the previous schemes there was an intention to cover the cases of such employees.

[9] In the result, I do not find any error in the view of the Government. Petition is dismissed. It is still open for the petitioner to apply for lump sum financial assistance as per the scheme. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.