Utpal Debnath And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents.

By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner No.1 has prayed for compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme due to the death of his father on 31.12.2011. The petitioner has stated in his writ petition that he is entitled to be appointed under the Die-in-harness Scheme framed by the Government. It is found in course of hearing of this petition that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 33 years. When he filed the writ petition, in the affidavit his age was indicated as 39 years as on 25.10.2017.

Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were totally dependent on the income of their deceased father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the communication dated 24.09.2015 wherein the prayer of the petitioner No.1 for appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had submitted representation after 3(three) years of the death of his father. However, Mr. Pal has tried to persuade this Court to take notice of the communication dated 01.03.2012 i.e. the representation for appointment on compassionate ground under Die-in-harness Scheme, wherefrom it is found that it was received by the official respondents on 02.03.2012. So according to him, it was filed within time and the contention of the respondents for rejecting the said representation vide Memorandum dated 24.09.2015, issued by the Director of School Education is baseless and suffers from non-application of mind and therefore, is liable to be set aside. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further submitted that the official respondents in their counter affidavit have made up a third case. He has submitted that one of his brothers was serving under Tripura State Riffles. But, he resides in a separate homestead, as such, the case of the petitioners is well covered by Memorandum dated 24.09.2011 as adopted by the Government of Tripura and this Memorandum is a part and parcel of the Die-in-harness Scheme of the Government. In the said Memorandum the expression "family" is defined at para 2 which reads thus:

"2. Now, the definition of the term "family" for the purpose of providing employment/financial assistance both in die-in-harness and extremist/ethnic violence, schemes has been reviewed by the Government and it is proposed to amend the definition of "family" as in the following manner:-

(i) his wife or her husband, as the case may be;

(ii) legitimate children excluding a married son or married daughter or daughter-in-law, if he/she lives separately from other members of the family;

(iii) step Children,

(iv) adopted Children,

(v) dependent daughter-in-law;

(vi) dependent parents;

(vii) dependent unmarried brother(s) and unmarried sister(s) and

(viii) dependent widow daughter(s)."

The said scheme was made effective immediately from the date of issuance of the said Memorandum dated 24.09.2011.

Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to a certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Bokafa R.D. Block wherein it was found that one Rajib Debnath, S/o Lt. Radharaman Debnath, ordinarily resident of West Jolaibari, village of West Jolaibari Gram under Bokafa R.D. Block expressed his willingness to shift his homestead from the aforesaid Gram to R.K.Nagar TSR Camp Second Battalion, West Tripura and on the basis of his application dated 30.09.2019, the name of the brother of the petitioner was deleted from the said ROR (Register of Ordinary Residence). On the basis of that document, Mr. Pal has tried to justify that since his brother had shifted his residence and has been living separately with his family members, the petitioners should not be treated as the members of a joint family along with Rajib Debnath who has already been appointed under the Government of Tripura.

On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that the petitioner No.1 Sri Utpal Debnath should not be treated as dependent on the income of his deceased father. It is revealed that the petitioner No.1 has his wife and a son which is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is also undisputed that at the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner No.1 was aged about 39 years which means that at the time of death, the petitioner No.1 was aged about 33 years. On this factual aspect, I am not entering into any other question, but, I want to confine myself within the fact that as to whether the petitioners were at all dependent on the income of their deceased father at the time of death.

Considering the fact that the petitioner No.1 was aged about 33 years at the time of death of his father and having his own family, I am not impressed with the submission of the learned counsel of the petitioners that the petitioners were dependent on the income of their deceased father in the year 2011. It is trite to emphasis, based on numerous judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court, that compassionate appointment is not an alternate to the established norms of appointment. The object of compassionate appointment is to aid and provide immediate assistance to the family members of the deceased Government employee to meet and overcome the crisis and hardship faced by the family members he left behind as they lost their lone earning member and, thus, the relevancy is at that stage of time when the employee passes away. The petitioner No.1 being aged about 33 years and having his own family members, in the context of the case, cannot be treated to be the dependent on the income of his deceased father.

In the instant case, the employee that is the father of the petitioners died in the year 2011. The crisis, for argument sake, even if they suffered at that stage, by elapse of time, must have learnt how to cope up with changed situation. The claim of the petitioner No.2, another son of the deceased employee also stands on the same footing as that of petitioner No.1.

In view of the aforesaid discussion and the settled legal position, according to me, the present petition is bereft of merit and stands dismissed.