Rakesh Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. H. K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents.

[2] The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner had filed his first application for compassionate appointment on 05.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) owing to death in harness of his father, namely Jatila Debbarma. His father died in harness as a Group-D employee under the Education Department, Govt. of Tripura. There is no dispute that under the Die-in-harness scheme, after the death of the employee, the application for compassionate appointment has to be made within a period of one year from the date of death.

[3] It is also not in dispute that the employee, father of the petitioner, died on 10.09.2012 and thereafter the petitioner filed the said application for compassionate appointment on 05.03.2014 which was delayed by 5 months 25 days from the stipulated period. While disclosing the reason of rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment by the Memorandum No.F.1(1-2)-SE/E/(NG)/2014(13)-1700 dated 06.02.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), it has been categorically stated that Jatila Debbarma, deceased govt. servant died on 10.09.2012 and after lapse of 1 (one) year 5 (five) months and 25 (twenty five) days from the date of death of Government employee, the petitioner, the son of the deceased employee has submitted a prayer on 05.03.2014 for employment under the Die-in-Harness scheme. It has been further stated in the Para-2 of the said memorandum dated 06.02.2018 as under:

"2. That as per Government order the claim for employment under die-in-harness ground should be preferred with one year after the death of the Government servant.

That since Sri Rakesh Debbarma the petitioner has not submitted the prayer within one year after death of his father, he is not entitled to get benefit under die-in-harness scheme".

[4] Thereafter, the petitioner raised the demand stating inter-alia that the requisite documents from the Government could not be collected for delay in the issuance of thee documents viz ROR certificate, survival certificate etc. It has been referred in the notice issued by the petitioner that the members of the family of the deceased was not well aware of the provision of Die-in-Harness scheme and the formalities to be observed in submitting the application i.e. time limit of submission of the application, consequence of submission of false documents etc. Therefore, the Department, when they got information about the death of any of its employees, while in service, is supposed to immediately communicate in writing to the respective families so that the application for employment /financial assistance under Die-in-harness scheme from the family of the deceased could be submitted before the appropriate Authority in the prescribed manner and within the stipulated time.

[5] But no such assistance was not extended to the petitioner. Even the death certificate and survival certificate were not issued in time by the authorities and for that reason, the delay has occurred.

[6] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has while making his submission stated that in the application for appointment dated 05.03.2014, it has been categorically noted that to collect the survival certificate and death certificate, there was delay and due to that reason and for absence of guidance, the petitioner could not submit his prayer within the stipulated time. But that aspect was not considered by the respondents. To provide appointment to the family of the deceased employee under the Die-in-Harness scheme, the Government has a benevolent policy. In the government order dated 21.04.2001 read with the office memorandum No.F.1(2)-GA/77 dated 13.08.1996, it has been provided as follows:

"In the "Die-in-harness Scheme" (i) there is one year time limit fixed for submission of claim for employment after the death of the Government servant, (ii) provision for providing assistance to the next of kin of the deceased employee by the concerned Department within one month from the occurrence of death and (iii) verification of income by S.D.Os.

The matter has been considered by the Government and it has been decided that time frame presently fixed for submitting application in such cases by the next of kin (i.e. one year from the date of death) shall be continued. While the concerned Government Department/Office will render assistance to the family in making application for employment, it is not essential to lay down a timeframe for providing assistance. However, once an application complete in all respects is submitted by the next of kin to the concerned Department/Office, it may dispose of the application within one month, in case a vacant post is available, and within three months, in case a vacant post is available, and within three months, in case a vacant post is not available and a supernumerary post is required to be created.

In so far as income certificate and survival certificate are concerned, the same may be taken by the family from the S.D.O concerned or by the Department from the S.D.O concerned, that is to say, it may not be made obligatory for the family to get these certificates from the S.D.Os".

[7] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has thereafter submitted that in reality, unless the income certificate and the survival certificate are submitted by the family members of the deceased employee to the respondents, the application is not treated as complete and no action is taken on such application. The contents of the said Memorandum has been referred in another Memorandum issued in 2015, reference of which has been made in the notice served by the petitioner on 24.03.2018 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has categorically submitted that the family of the deceased employee has not been able to readjust their financial need as yet, after the sudden death of the sole bread-earner.

[8] Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel has further contended that when this scheme for welfare of the deceased employee came into effect and when no assistance was given to the petitioner for filing the application in time with the required documents, a decision of the Gauhati High Court may be relevant. In Sri Tapan Debnath vs. The State of Tripura and Ors. [Judgment dated 25.07.2008 delivered in WP(C) No. 204 of 2008] the Gauhati High Court had occasion to observe and direct in the following terms:

In view of the aforesaid position, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, provided he fulfills all the conditions required to be fulfilled under the scheme formulated by the State of Tripura in that respect. The respondents, while considering the said application, shall also consider the case of the petitioner that the Survival Certificate which is required be annexed with the application seeking compassionate appointment was issued by the SDI, Bishalgarh on 24.11.2003.

[9] In that case, as it appears from the records, the application was filed on 27.04.2004 for compassionate appointment. There was no delay in filing the application under the Die-in-Harness scheme as laid down as the SDM, Bishalgarh had issued the survival certificate only on 24.11.2003. In that perspective, the said direction was given for consideration of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner. According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel, the petitioner had applied for the death certificate of the deceased employee on 10.09.2012. The death certificate was issued by the concerned authority on 06.06.2013 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

[10] After obtaining the death certificate, a prayer was made to the SDM, Khowai for obtaining the survival certificate on 05.07.2013. The survival certificate was issued by the concerned authority on 26.11.2013 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The application for compassionate appointment in Die-in-harness scheme was submitted by the petitioner on 05.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). The reason for rejection was communicated by the letter dated 06.02.2018 by the respondents mentioning the delay of 5 months and 25 days as the solitary ground of rejection. In response, the petitioner served demand notice to the competent authority for compassionate appointment on 23.03.2018. According to Mr. Bhowmik, learned counsel, the delay has occurred in filing the application for compassionate appointment by the petitioner for the similar reason as reflected in the decision of Tapan Debnath (supra).

From the other side, Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. has submitted that due to delay in filing his prayer for compassionate appointment, his application was rejected inasmuch as he was supposed to make such prayer within one year from the day of death, as prescribed in the Die-in-Harness scheme.

[11] But Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. has fairly stated that the survival certificate was received by the petitioner on 26.11.2013 i.e. after the stipulated time was over. The application was filed on 05.03.2014 as stated earlier. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. has contended that unless the application is filed within the stipulated time, the application for employment under the Die-in-Harness scheme cannot be acted upon in terms of the scheme.

[12] Having appreciated the submission made by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the view that there is no dispute that the delay of 5 months and 25 days has occurred in filing the application. But the reason for such delay has attracted the notice of this court that the survival certificate was issued on 26.11.2013 whereas the prayer for survival certificate was made to the SDM, Khowai on 05.07.2013. It further appears that after death of the employee, no assistance or guidance from the government was available to the family of the deceased employee for filing the said application in time. The petitioner had expected a positive response from the government. The delay of 5 months and 25 days cannot be attributed to the petitioner or family. They were prevented by the administrative logjam. Even there was no assistance from the Department of the deceased employee (herein the Education Department, Govt. of India) for action in time according to the Memorandum dated 21.04.2001 issued by General Administration (P&T) Department under File No.1(1)-GA(P&T)/97(L) dated 21.04.2001.

[13] In view of the above, this court is of the considered view that the respondents shall take step to re-consider the matter of the compassionate appointment of the petitioner treating the application for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme filed in time [See Tapan Debnath versus The State of Tripura]. Hence, the respondent No.2 shall consider the petitioner to provide compassionate appointment within a period of 2(two) months from the date when the petitioner shall provide a copy of this order to the respondent No.2.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.