Ratan Bhowmik vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] By means of this writ petition, the petitioner, who urges this court for directing the respondents to provide him a suitable job under die-in-harness scheme, seeks quashment of the decision of the respondents contained in the letters dated 23.02.2017 (Annesure-6 to the writ petition) and dated 19.06.2017 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

[2] The petitioner has been communicated by those letters that since he had a separate family ration card preceding the death of his father, namely Chinta Haran Bhowmik who died in harness as farm worker, he cannot be considered for compassionate appointment under die-in-harness scheme. The said decision was taken on the basis of the opinion of the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura. The petitioner's father, namely Chinta Haran Bhowmik died on 11.03.2015 leaving behind Kunja Rani Bhowmik (his wife), Chandan Bhowmik (son), Ratan Bhowmik (son), Lipi Bhowmik Debnath (daughter), Lilu Bhowmik (daughter), Shilpi Bhowmik Debnath (daughter). In this regard, there is no dispute. Chinta Haran Bhowmik was working as the regular farm worker at the time of his death i.e. 11.03.2015.

[3] The family left by the deceased employee faced serious financial hardship for abrupt death of the only earning person in the family. The petitioner within the time as prescribed under die-in-harness scheme applied for job thereunder on 10.09.2015 along with an affidavit sworn on 14.08.2015. The respondent No.2, the Director of Agriculture, Govt. of Tripura by his communication F.2-13690(P)/16944-45 dated 23.02.2017 apprised the petitioner that his application for providing employment under die-in-harness scheme, due to death of his father, has been regretted by the Finance Department for the reason that his name has been deleted from the family ration card of the deceased employee before death of the deceased employee and for possessing a separate family ration card in his name before death of the deceased employee.

[4] The petitioner is eligible for employment in the Group-D category. He has submitted all relevant documents and in that regard there has been no complaint from the respondents. He has further asserted that on 04.10.2016, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura visited their house to make inquiry. The petitioner has asserted that he was dependent on income of his father.

[5] Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has approached this court seeking the reliefs as stated. The respondents filed the composite reply and reiterated their stand what was communicated by the respondent No.2. They have admitted that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura has submitted inquiry report on 03.10.2016. Hence, the statement that he visited the petitioner's place on 04.10.2016 seems to be fictitious. In para-8, the respondents has averred why they had discarded the prayer of the petitioner. For purpose of reference and considering the relevance of para-8, the said passage is reproduced hereunder;

"8. That, in reply to the contention made in Para 6 of the petition I submit that he petitioner Sri Ratan Bhowmik, S/o Lt. Chintaharan Bhowmik, Ex-F/W has submitted a copy of Ration Card along with his application for a job under die-in-harness scheme through which it is revealed that the petitioner is staying separately and also possessed separate Ration Card before the death of his father i.e. deceased employee vide Ration Card No.161000869647/16012031070181037 issued on 01.04.2011 consisting 3 family members namely (1) Sri Ratan Bhowmik (Petitioner self) (2) Smt. Mallika Debnath (Bhowmik) (wife of the petitioner) and (3) Jui Bhownik (Daughter of the petitioner). Similarly, the deceased employee had been possessing separate Ration Card, vide No.161000869787/16012031070181194 issued on the same day i.e. 01.04.2011 consisting 3 family members namely (1) Chintaharan Bhowmik (Deceased employee) (2) Smt. Kunja Rani Bhowmik (wife of the deceased employee) and (3) Chandan Chandra Bhowmik (Son of the deceased employee). Copy of the computer generated copies are enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/1 & R/2.

The Department issued a letter to the petitioner for submission of authenticated copy of Ration Card and in response of which Sri Bhowmik submitted another Ration Card where in the names of the family members including Sri Ratan Bhowmik was enlisted after the expire of his father.

Copy of both Ration Cards along with English rendering is hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure-R/3 & R/4.

The matter was brought to the notice of the Finance Department and the Finance Department vide U.O No.2027 FIN(G) dated 14.02.2017 regretted the proposal for awarding Govt. job to the petitioner under die-in-harness scheme.

Copy of Finance Department vide U.O No.2027 FIN(G) dated 14.02.2017 is hereby enclosed and marked as Annexure-R/5."

[6] Thus, the respondents had inferred that on the day of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was living separately and he did possess separate ration card, the ration card under No. 161000869647/16012031070181037 issued on 01.04.2011 and his father was having a separate ration card under No. 161000869787/16012031070181194 issued on the same day i.e. 01.04.2011. His father died on 11.03.2015. According to the respondents, at the time of death of the deceased employee, the petitioner was married and he was living separately. Thus, the petitioner was not eligible for employment under the die-in-harness scheme.

[7] As per the report dated 03.10.2016 as submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura, no family member of the deceased employee is in the employment not even in the private sector. In the family left by the deceased, no one is in the government service but they have landed property measuring 0.10 acre. Except a meager amount of pension, there is no other source of income.

[8] By filing the rejoinder, the petitioner has denied that the petitioner had been living separately from before the death of the deceased employee. The petitioner has asserted in response to para-8 of the reply filed by the respondents and contended that the said statement is unverified. Thereafter, it has been asserted as follows:

"The SDM Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura issued the ration card on 18.08.2011. In the said ration card the name of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner and others are recorded. On 10.07.2015 the SDM, Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura deleted the name of the father of the petitioner due to his death. On 10.07.2016 the SDM, Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura written in the family ration card that four adult and one minor. The Hon'ble High Court may permit to show the original ration card vide no.16012031070181194 at the time of hearing. In the said original ration card there is nothing written that inclusion of two adult and one minor. The SDM, Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura submitted the enquiry report and the said enquiry report it reveals that as per survival certificate and Panchayet ROR the family consist of six members but as per ration card there are five members in the said ROR. As per the survival certificate the deceased left behind six legal heirs namely Kunja Rani Bhowmik, Chandan Bhowmik, Ratan Bhowmik, Lipi Bhowmik Debnath, Lilu Bhowmik Debnath, Shilpi Bhowmik Debnath. After the marriage of Lipi Bhowmik, Lilu Bhowmik, Shilpi Bhowmik who are the daughter of Lt. Chinta Haran Bhowmik, their name were deleted in the ROR. On 07.06.2018 the B.D.O issued a new ROR by deleting the name of the daughter of the deceased Chinta Haran Bhowmik.

Copy of the said Ration Card & ROR are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1-A & R1-B."

[9] From the family ration card No. 16012031070181194 (Annexure-R1/A), it can be had that there were five family members including the deceased employee on 18.08.2011 on the date of issuance of the family ration card. Family members as it stood on 18.08.2011 are as under:

Chinta Haran Bhowmik (Karta)

Kunja Rani Bhowmik (wife)

Chandan Chandra Bhowmik (son)

Ratan Bhowmik (son)

Mallika Debnath (Bhowmik) (the daughter-in-law)

Jui Bhowmik (grand-daughter)

In the said ration card, the SDM by the following note dated 10.07.2015, deleted the name of Chinta Haran Bhowmik (the deceased employee) as the card holder on account of his death and inserted the name of Kunja Rani Bhowmik in his place:

Deleted the name of Chinta Haran Bhowmik due to death and also produced his death certificate on Panchayet ROR.

Sd/- illegible

Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sonamura, Sepahijala Tripura

[10] It has been further noted after such deletion and insertion that in the family, there are 4 (four) adult persons and one minor. Even the ROR supports this position (Annexure R1/B). The respondents, with the leave from the court, filed one additional reply and reiterated the earlier stand and referred to one ration card which was enclosed with the forwarding letter dated 13.10.2016 (Annexure-R8 to the writ petition). In the said family ration card under No. 16012031070181037, the petitioner has been shown as the card holder and his family has been shown to have comprised of the following members:

Ratan Bhowmik (Karta)

Mallika Debnath (Bhowmik) (wife)

Jui Bhowmik (daughter)

[11] From the photocopy as produced with the reply, this court does not find any signature of any authority who is competent to issue the ration card, but there is a signature of the person who prepared the ration card. The signature of the card holder is also missing. The petitioner had denied to have issued such ration card in his favour. But by filing the additional affidavit the respondents have also produced the relevant page of ROR for village Maishonbari Ward No.2 page No.159 under District-Sepahijala Tripura where the petitioner has been shown as the Karta of the family and his wife and daughter are shown as the other family members.

[12] According to the respondents, by the forwarding letter dated 13.10.2018 (Annexure-8 to the additional reply filed by the respondents), the petitioner filed the said ration card where he has been shown as the karta, but in the forwarding letter, there is no ration card number. What has been filed by the petitioner is the ration card which stood in name of his father on the day of his death. It is apparent in the face of the record that one entry has been made by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after the photocopy was submitted. Again, by a forwarding letter dated 25.09.2017 as placed with the additional reply, the petitioner had supplied a copy of the ration card which is in the name of his father. Later, the deletion of his father's was caused on 10.07.2015.

[13] From the transaction details of Aadhaar enabled Public Distribution System (PDS)- AePDS, it appears that the petitioner had a separate ration card under APL category and the wife of the petitioner had availed the commodity from the designated fair price shop under No.390300200012. Similarly, the ration card stood in the name of his mother was also used for availing the commodity from the said fair price shop.

[14] Thus, the respondents have contended that the claim of the petitioner stands out to be false so far the ration cards are concerned. The original document has been filed in this court. Those include the ration card no.16012031070181194 which was kept in a sealed cover and opened at the time of hearing.

[15] Ms. S. Deb(Gupta), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has, in the factual context, submitted that the purpose of inquiry is only to determine whether the person who is seeking employment under the die-in-harness scheme was a member of the family of the deceased employee and whether at the relevant time he was living with the family of the deceased employee. It cannot be denied that from the records produced by the respondents, in particular, e-transaction details, this court is of the view that the petitioner was living in the family of the deceased employee but he had created separate ration card for his family. In the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura, there we find no finding whether the petitioner was living with the deceased employee or not. But Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents has quite vehemently submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands to seek the relief as stated. Moreover, from his family ration card (Annexure-R3 to the reply filed by the respondents), it is quite transparent that the petitioner had separated him from the family of the deceased.

[16] Ms. S Deb Gupta learned counsel has relied on a decision of this court in Rakesh Das vs State of Tripura Ors. (the judgment dated 20.09.2016 delivered in WP(C) 168 of 2016), but in that case the Sub-Divisional Magistrate had quite categorically stated in his report that the petitioner was living with his father and he was a member of the family of the deceased employee. But in this case, no such finding is available in the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Notwithstanding omission and commission of separating the ration card, the primary object of inquiry would have been to find out whether the petitioner was living in the deceased's family on the day of death or not. Denial of the employment under the die-in-harness scheme for having the separate ration card on the face of specific report that none in the deceased employee earns for their survival, would only cause serious injustice to the other family members.

[17] Having observed thus, the respondent No.2, in particular, is directed to cause an inquiry through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura, Sepahaijala District for purpose of finding whether the petitioner was living in the family of the deceased employee or not. During the inquiry, the aspect of two family ration cards where the name of the petitioner are recorded as the member of the family be ignored. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura Sepahijala shall take the physical evidence and frame his finding as regards whether the petitioner was living with the deceased employee on the day of his death. Such report shall be obtained from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura Sepahijala District within 6 (six) weeks from the day of receiving a copy of this order. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order at the earliest. If, from the inquiry report, it surfaces that the petitioner was living in the family of the deceased employee on the day of death physically and he was the member of the said family, the petitioner shall be considered for employment under die-in-harness scheme, commensurate to his qualification within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receiving the finding of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonamura, Sepahijala District.

As consequence of the above observation, the decision denying the petitioner employment under the die-in-harness scheme on account of death of his father stands interfered with and set aside.

In the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent as stated above.

The original ration card maintained in the sealed cover be returned to the counsel of the petitioner.

No order as to costs.