Mahesh Tripura vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to give him a job commensurate to his qualification under die-in-harness scheme as their sole earning member has expired in the harness on 05.11.2013. It is also not in dispute that the deceased namely Bijoy Singh Tripura was serving as the driver under the Directorate of Fire Services, Govt. of Tripura and he left the following persons in his family:

Gitarani Tripura (wife)

Bittu Tripura (Son)

Swapna Tripura (Daughter)

Mahesh Tripura (Son)

Kabita Tripura (Daughter in law)

Prithiviraj Tripura (Grandson)

[3] The family members have persuaded the petitioner to apply for the job under the die-in-harness scheme as he is eligible to be considered for such job. Accordingly, the petitioner has applied with all necessary documents including documents relating to his educational qualification, permanent residence certificate, age-proof certificate, family ration card etc. But the prayer has been rejected as it would be apparent from the communication dated 10.10.2014 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). By the said communication dated 27.09.2014 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Home Department, Govt. of Tripura, it has been apprised that the matter was referred to the Finance Department and the Finance Department has regretted their inability to concur the proposal of the petitioner as from the ration card, it appeared that the petitioner was living separately from the other family members before the death of his father.

[4] By the communication dated 17.11.2014 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), the Directorate of Fire Services was informed that under the die-in-harness scheme a married son or married daughter or daughter in law if he/she lives separately from other members of the family, is excluded from the benefit under the said scheme. The petitioner submitted some information about the family ration card in the year 2015 and contended that the petitioner had been living in the joint family and there had been only one ration card from which it would appear that the petitioner was living with the family left by the deceased employee.

[5] The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Longtharai Valley, Chailengta who carried out the inquiry in terms of the die-in-harness scheme has in his forwarding letter dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), observed as under:

"It also appears that the applicant Sri Mahesh Tripura and other 03 (three) survivors belonging to the same family as per family Ration Card No.1603304409017 & enquiry report."

He has also filed the inquiry report. In the inquiry report, it has been categorically observed inter-alia as under:

"Smt. Gitarani Tripura, W/o late Bijoy Singh Tripura personally declares that a die-in-harness job to be given to her elder son Shri Mahesh Tripura" (the petitioner herein).

[6] In the column 13 of the part-I of the report as submitted by the SDM, it has been categorically observed that the petitioner is married. The ration card is the evidence of his staying with the family. On the part-C, the SDM has reflected on the eligibility of the applicant under the die-in-harness scheme by the following words:

"Recommended subject to eligibility as per norms."

[7] It is abundantly clear that the SDM did not find any embargo in giving the job under the die-in-harness scheme to the petitioner. Even the SDM with his report has furnished a copy of the Register of Ordinary Residence (ROR) wherefrom it appears that the petitioner has been staying with the family and there had been no alteration at all.

[8] Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has therefore contended that the views of the Finance Department and the Home Department are un- vinformed and contrary to the object of the die-in-harness scheme. Residing outside the family for a temporary period for any purpose cannot be treated as separation from the family or cannot be deemed to have the other unit as the separate family. Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has categorically submitted that from the ROR and the Common Ration Card, one and only thing that can be supposed is that the petitioner was staying with the family of the deceased employee and the deceased.

[9] However, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A in a attempt to repel the submission of Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has contended that the petitioner was living separately. From the report of the SDM, it can be clearly had that after the death of the deceased employee, he had joined the family again. With the records, as produced this court finds a letter of Joint Director, Directorate of Fire Services dated 08.12.2017 whereby it has been written to the Home Department that in a similar circumstance in Gopal Das vs. The State of Tripura & Others [WP(C)178 of 2017] this court allowed the prayer of the petitioner by directing the respondents to give the petitioner job under the die-in-harness scheme. In that case also, the prayer was regretted by the government. No response thereto is not available with the records. Even Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has confirmed that the petitioner had submitted a copy of the said judgment dated 09.06.2017 in Gopal Das (supra).

[10] In the reply filed by the respondents, copies of two ration cards are filed for inspection. In one ration card being No.156033044090171062 shows that Mahesh Tripura had a separate ration card in Dhumacherra. The other ration card bearing No.16033044090171088, the name of the petitioner is not available. That is the family ration card of Gitarani Tripura. Thus, the families are deemed to have separated by their necessity and according to Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. for that reason, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit under the die-in-harness scheme.

[11] Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A has further submitted that the Finance Department has correctly pointed out that the petitioner was not part of the family in the life time of the deceased employee and as such, he is to be excluded from the benefit under the die-in-harness scheme. However, Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A has categorically stated that any person eligible to get appointment in the family left by the deceased employee may get the said job and there will be no difficulty, if such person is available.

[12] In this regard, Mr. Deb, learned senior counsel has immediately quipped by saying that no such person was available at the time of death of the deceased. The remaining members left by the deceased employee have given their undertaking supported by an affidavit that they would not claim the job, if the petitioner is given a job under the die-in-harness scheme. There is also no dispute that if a married family member has separated his family or himself from the family of the deceased employee during his life time in that situation, he cannot be granted the benefit. For this reason, the physical inquiry is essential to establish whether the physical separation had taken place or that was a temporary shifting of that family and for ascertaining the real state of affair, the ration card cannot be the testimony of separation of the family. In this case, this court does find materials to infer that the petitioner was temporarily staying away from that family. Even the SDM has stated that the petitioner was staying in the family of the government employee. Temporarily, he might be away from the family and on death of his father, he joined the family for looking after the other family members.

[13] That apart, it is apparent from the declaration relating relinquishment of the claim by the wife of the deceased employee [the mother of the petitioner] that they all prefer the petitioner to get the job. This court really is at bay to understand to how the respondents will be affected prejudicially, if any other member excluding the petitioner is given the job from the family. On the contrary, it appears that the petitioner is the eldest son of the family and the mother and all other family members of the deceased employee have nominated the petitioner for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. The strict interpretation of the clauses of the die-in-harness scheme is not desirable, when the object is to help the family tide over the immediate financial crisis that has visited them. Such liberal approach has been redundant. This court is not oblivious that there remains possibility of exercising fraud by some people by taking advantage of this clause. For this purpose, the foundation for coming to inference is found in the report of the SDM. After scrutiny of the SDM's report and considering his unequivocal recommendation, this court is of the view that the respondents be directed to give a job commensurate to the qualification of the petitioner and as per the Die-in-harness scheme to the petitioner within a period of three months when the petitioner shall receive a copy of this order.

Accordingly, it is ordered.

In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.