Utnayan Debbarma vs State Of Tripura And Ors

1) Heard Mr. P.K. Ghosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the respondents.

2) The petitioner in the instant writ petition has prayed for the following reliefs:-

i) Issue rule NISI calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari should not be issued directing the respondents to quash the letter No.F.6(1)/PWD(E-II)/95(Pt-IV)/3789-92 dated 18/06/2019 issued by the Chief Engineer (R&B), PWD, Govt. of Tripura; and

ii) As to why a writ of mandamus should not be issued directing the respondents to provide a Govt. Job in Group-C post or any other post as applicable under Die-in-harness Scheme to the petitioner; and

iii) To issue any other or direction so as to grant complete and adequate relief to the petitioner.

3) The solitary question to be decided is whether the petitioner is entitled to be provided with a job under Die-in-Harness scheme due to the death of his father. The father of the petitioner, late Hiran Debbarma, died on 18.06.2017 while he was in employment under the respondents. The petitioner being the son of Lt. Hiran Debbarma had submitted a representation to the respondent No.3 to provide him a suitable job under the Die-in-Harness scheme. The said scheme was formulated and published by the Govt. of Tripura vide notification dated 26th December, 2015.

4) In course of hearing, it is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mother of the writ petitioner is in service on temporary basis, though, her service may be terminated at any point of time. The mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Parul Debbarma, was appointed as Farm Worker vide order dated 2nd March, 2015, as Group-D, non-gazatted on regular pay scale. It has also come to light that the post of Farm Worker is a permanent sanctioned post of the Govt. of Tripura. As such, I find no force in the submission of the Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel that the service of the petitioner's mother may be terminated at any point of time for the reason that a person who has been appointed against a permanent vacancy and sanctioned post he/she cannot be terminated in a mechanical manner. The undisputed fact in the instant writ petition is that the mother of the petitioner is already under employment of the Government.

5) Furthermore, the concept of compassionate appointment, is noted to be that, whole object of granting such employment is to enable the family to tide over the immediate crisis occurring due to sudden death of his bread-earner. Mere death of any employee is harness does not entitle his family to such a source of livelihood. The Government or public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and only if it is satisfied, that but for provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, only then, a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. It is to be kept in mind that such appointment is to be regarded as an exception to the established policy of public employment and is absolutely made as humanitarian consideration on account of one's unexpected death while in service. It is a concession given to the dependents to get over the sudden financial crisis. As such, the claim for compassionate appointment must be confined to the scheme framed by the employer or by the policy makers for such employment and there is no space left to act otherwise.

6) In the context of the case, I may profitably refer the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, wherein the Apex Court while setting aside the directing of the High Court for reconsideration of the application for compassionate appointment had held thus:-

"18. While considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of principles which accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Dependants of a deceased employee of the State are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment. The basis of the policy is that it recognizes that a family of a deceased employee may be placed in a position of financial hardship upon the untimely death of the employee while in service. It is the immediacy of the need which furnishes the basis for the State to allow the benefit of compassionate appointment. Where the authority finds that the financial and other circumstances of the family are such that in the absence of immediate assistance, it would be reduced to being indigent, an application from a dependent member of the family could be considered. The terms on which such applications would be considered are subject to the policy which is framed by the State and must fulfil the terms of the policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled principle of law that there is no right to compassionate appointment. But, where there is a policy, a dependent member of the family of a deceased employee is entitled to apply for compassionate appointment and to seek consideration of the application in accordance with the terms and conditions which are prescribed by the State."

7) Having due regard to factual aspect that the mother of the petitioner is in employment under the State respondents and keeping in mind the principle as settled by various judicial pronouncements, in my considered view, the petitioner has failed to make out a case that there is any immediate crisis in the family occurred due to the death of his father who was not the only bread-earner in the family.

8) Having held so, the instant petition claiming compassionate appointment merits no consideration and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

9) However, there shall be no order as to costs.