Snighda Nath vs State Of Tripura And Ors

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

[2] The petitioner has urged this court, by means of this writ petition, to direct the respondents to provide her appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme introduced by the memorandum No.F.1(2)-GA/77 dated 13.08.1996, Annexure-G to the writ petition owing to death of her father namely, Subhendu Bikash Nath, Head Master of Primary School namely Netajinagar High School, Teliamura, Directorate of School Education, Govt. of Tripura in harness on 23.06.2011. Immediately after the death of her father, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme as she was the only person from the dependent family of Subhendu Bikash Nath, the deceased employee eligible for getting such appointment. Her mother, the widow of the deceased employee, also submitted the non-claimer on any appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme for death of her husband.

[3] The respondents inquired thoroughly about the status of the petitioner and finally by the memorandum under No.F.1(1-2)-SE/E/(NG)/2011/(142)-1174 dated 14.07.2015 the petitioner was informed as follows :

"The undersigned is to refer to the prayer dated nil of Smt. Snigdha Nath, D/O. Lt. Subhendu Bikash Nath, Ex-Headmaster (Primary), Netajinagar High School, Teliamura for an employment under die-in-harness scheme due to death of her father while in service and to say that her prayer has been carefully examined in the Finance Department, Tripura as well as at this Directorate and it is decided that the prayer of Smt. Snigdha Nath cannot be acceded to because she is married daughter of the deceased Government employee and does not come under the purview of family for entitlement of benefits under the die-in-harness scheme." [Emphasis added]

[4] The petitioner has stated that by the Memorandum No.F.1(1-2)-SE/E/(NG)/2011/(142)/1785 dated 07.11.2013 she was apprised that her application dated 12.10.2013 was enclosed with her marriage certificate and the income certificate of her husband. It has been further observed that those certificates/documents will not serve the purpose for consideration of the petitioner under Die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner was requested to intimate the Directorate, the occupation of her husband namely, Sanjib Das. The petitioner has asserted that she had informed the respondents by her communication dated 15.11.2013 that her husband has been carrying a business of small betel shop and he has no other occupation to pursue.

[5] Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has produced the certificate of marriage issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to show that the marriage had taken place on 27.04.2012. There is no controversy in respect of the marriage of the petitioner. But the ground for denial of compassionate appointment is that the petitioner is the married daughter of the deceased employee and therefore she cannot be treated as the member of the family left by the deceased employee.

[6] Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has quite emphatically submitted that that plea is grossly unsustainable. The petitioner was eligible to get the compassionate appointment and denial of such appointment is arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power inasmuch as the petitioner's case is well covered by the scheme which was in force at the relevant point of time.

[7] Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. has submitted that the respondents have considered the very object of the scheme. The espoused object is to help the family left by the deceased employee ride over the financial crisis confronted by the family of the deceased employee and to look after their well being. Since the petitioner is married and by the policy change the Government has excluded the married daughter from the family of the deceased, the respondents have denied to provide the petitioner compassionate appointment.

[8] Having appreciated the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, this court would refer to the memorandum dated 24.09.2011, Annexure-9 to the writ petition by which the married daughter who lives separately from the family of the deceased was excluded. That definition of family has been given effect from 24.09.2011. The scheme which was in force on the day of the death of the deceased employee i.e. 23.06.2011 provided [See the Memorandum No.F.1(2)-GA/77 dated 13.08.1996, Annexure-G to the writ petition] no exclusion. The said memorandum has partly been modified. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder from the memorandum dated 13.08.1996:

"(1) (i) Employment may be provided to one member of the family provided there is no earning member in the family is an existing vacant post in the Department without any relaxation of recruitment rules and reservation roster.

(ii) The Eligibility shall be determined as on the date of death of the concerned employee.

(2) (i) Supernumerary posts should be created with Finance concurrence in the Departments where eligible member of a family cannot be provided employment for want of posts, which fact is to be certified by the Head of the Department personally. These posts would be personal to the incumbents and shall lapse with the vacation of the posts by the persons concerned.

(ii) While filling up the Supernumerary posts created reservation/roster/ norms need not be followed.

(iii) However, the persons appointed against the Supernumerary posts should be absorbed against regular posts/vacancies, as and when the first vacancy arises in the Department against appropriate category i.e. SC/ST/UR following reservation/roster norms. The supernumerary posts shall stand abolished on such regularization against regular posts. A register of supernumerary posts created should be maintained in each Department and the abolition of the post should be certified in the register by the Head of the Department personally.

(3) (i) Financial assistance should be paid to the family in cases where no (persons) could be provided employment due to absence of eligible (persons). In such cases an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) will be provided as financial assistance and will be kept in fixed deposit with a post office and interest from which can be earned by the family.

(ii) The financial assistance as mentioned above will be paid by the Department to which the employee who died-in-harness belonged. In the case of the Government employee of the Secretariat, S.A. Department will make the payment."

[9] It is, therefore, apparent that the married daughter was not excluded from the family by way of definition. Further, it is apparent that the eligibility had to be determined on the date of death of the employee. What is paramount in this case is that on the day of death i.e. 23.06.2011, even the petitioner was not married. Her marriage took place after death of the deceased employee i.e. on 27.04.2012.

[10] This court has been persuaded to note with appreciation that the petitioner did not conceal anything from the respondent. She had revealed her marital status and the status of her husband. In the writ petition, the petitioner has made a categorical statement that her husband income is not sufficient for maintenance of the family, to which she is married. Even her mother does not have any other means of earning or sustenance.

[11] Having observed thus, this court is of the view that the respondents were under obligation to consider the status of the petitioner as on 23.06.2011 and not on any posterior date for whatever reason. That apart, on 23.06.2011, the petitioner was not married. She was the part of the family of the deceased employee and by all means she was eligible to get compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme.

[12] Having observed thus, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme within a period of 4 (four) months from the day when a copy of this order will be furnished to the respondent No.3.

[13] This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.