Pranjit Saha vs State Of Tripura And Ors.

Heard Mr. A Acharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. P Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

By means of this intra court appeal, the judgment and order dated 19.10.2020 delivered in WP(C) No.408 of 2020 (Pranjit Saha vs. State of Tripura & Ors.) has been called in question. While dismissing the writ petition, learned single Judge has observed thus:

"The government had refused the appointment on the same grounds. The court had directed the government to consider his application on merits in special facts of the case since the petitioner therein was falling short of the required age by barely few weeks, however, the facts in the present case being different. The petitioner is falling short of the required minimum age on the crucial date by more than five months. Analogy of the said case, therefore, cannot be applied in the present case."

The case that has been referred in this above extract was decided by this court in Subhajit Shil vs. State of Tripura & Anr. [the judgment and order dated 10.02.2019 delivered in WP(C) No.572 of 2019] whereby the state was directed to waive shortfall of few days for consideration of the case of the petitioner under the purview of the die-in-harness scheme.

Mr. A Acharjee, learned counsel has submitted that at the time of death of his mother, namely, Manju Rani Saha who died on 07.01.2018 in harness, the petitioner was 16 years 7 months and few days. He had applied for the job turning 18 years of age but that was turned down by the said respondents as he did not complete at least 17 years of age on the day of death as 1 year shortfall is permitted to waived under the Die-in-harness Scheme for consideration of the compassionate appointment on completion of 18 years of service.

Thus, the minimum age for consideration has been declared to be 17 years of age for purpose of compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme. But the appointment shall only be made on completion of 18 years. Even the petitioner did not complete that age when his mother died. Thus, his prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected. By the memorandum dated 05.08.2019 (Annexure-17 F to the writ petition) the petitioner was granted a sum of Rs.1 lakh as financial assistance under the Die-in-harness scheme as the alternative relief as there was none in the family to be employed under the Die-in-harness scheme.

Mr. A Acharjee, learned counsel has submitted that since the Die-in-harness scheme is beneficial legislation, this strict interpretation of its provisions may be avoided. The interpretation that would suit the purpose of the victim should be extended by the court. In support of his contention, he has relied on two decisions of this court. In Uttam Rabi Das vs. State of Tripura (the judgment dated 07.10.2013 delivered in WP(C) No.140 of 2003) this court had observed that the die-in-harness scheme being a beneficial scheme should be interpreted "generously" with a view to afford the benefits to the deserving persons and not to deprive them. In that case, it was admitted that father of the petitioner Die-in-harness living behind the petitioner and the other members of the family, the department should generously consider the prayer of the petitioner for his employment or in the alternative would give the benefits as prescribed in Para 3 of the notification dated 13.08.1996 when his prayer for employment was rejected. Even the benefit as prescribed in Para 3 (1) of the notification was not given to the petitioner. Under the facts and circumstances it was held justified to give direction to the respondents to give a suitable job to the petitioner under the scheme which was in force.

Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel has also pressed the decision of this court delivered in Rajib Sarkar vs. State of Tripura & Ors. (the judgment dated 11.07.2016 delivered in WP(C) No.268 of 2015) where this court had occasion to observe as follows:

"10. A bare reading of the Memorandum dated 28.08.1998 and the memorandum dated 2nd March, 2015 makes it clear that the petitioner was entitled to get one year relaxation for the purpose of employment from the date of death of his father. So, while the mother of the petitioner made the application on 08.072005 for employment, the petitioner was a minor but when the petitioner made application for employment on 15.052009 he had attained majority. Though the petitioner had attained majority in the year 2006 he did not make any application for his appointment but admittedly his mother approached the authority. After relaxation of one year there was shortage of a few months for attaining majority of the petitioner.

A scheme like the Die-in-Harness Scheme which is a beneficial one should be interpreted generously with a view to afford the benefits to the deserving persons. It is also the admitted position that in the family of the petitioner there is no government employee who can look after them."

Having observed thus in Rajib Sarkar vs. State of Tripura & Ors. the state respondents were directed to re-examine the case of the petitioner and take note of the memorandum dated 28.08.1998 along with the decision delivered by this court in WP(C) No.140 of 2003 (Uttam Rabidas vs. State of Tripura & Ors.). But in Rajib Sarkar (supra) there was no positive direction for consideration of appointment.

We have keenly appreciated the contention of Mr. Acharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of interpretation of the provisions of the Die-in-harness Scheme. In this regard, the reference may be made to the Union of India & Anr. Vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr., reported in 2012 AIR SCW 3257 where the apex court had observed inter alia that there can be no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant was dependent on the deceased employee. Strictly, such a claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. Appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis and not to confer a status on the family. Thus, applicant cannot claim appointment in a particular class/group of post. Appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

This being the object of framing of the Die-in-Harness Scheme, this court is of the view, that in the name of giving the liberal interpretation, the court cannot expand the provision of the Die-in-harness Scheme. It has to strictly adhere to its provision. No court can expand its scope by way of „generous‟ or liberal interpretation of any of its provisions.

Thus, we are in complete disagreement with what has been held in Uttam Rabidas vs. State of Tripura. Such inference is aberration in the name of providing the benefit under a beneficial scheme. With all humility, we observe the said proposition of law is an incorrect exposition contrary to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the said proposition would not bind us.

In view of what has been observed by us, we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned single judge while passing the order dated 19.10.2020, which has been challenged by the writ petitioner in this appeal.

Thus, this appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.