SRI TARITMOY DEBBARMA v. THE STATE OF TRIPURA &

Legal Reasoning

Party Name : SRI TARITMOY DEBBARMA Vs THE STATE OF TRIPURA & 2 ORS. HON''BLE MR JUSTICE U B SAHA The instant application is filed by an unemployed youth who has lost his father Trilokesh Debbarma on 28-05-2007 while he was in service for a direction to the State-respondents for providing him a suitable job under “Die-in-harness” scheme as in force in the State of Tripura. Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State-respondents at this motion stage. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties and also considering the facts involved and the nature of prayer, the instant writ petition is taken up for final disposal at this motion stage itself. The pleaded case of the petitioner is as follows :- That, the petitioner has lost his father on 28-05-2007 while his father was working as Group-D employee in the Animal Resource Development Department, though he was promoted in the post of Group-C, but could not join because of his illness. After the death of his father, being eldest son he has filed an application on 31-03-2008 (Annexure-G to the writ petition) before the Director of Animal Resource Development Department, respondent no. 2 herein, for providing him a suitable job to a suitable post on compassionate ground and thereafter again he has filed another application on 28-0- -2012 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) to the said authority, i.e. respondent no. 2. But the respondent no. 2 even after receipt of his applications did not response to the same though the Government of Tripura has prepared schemes vide its memorandum dated 31-05-1995 and memorandum dated 13-08-1996. As the respondent no. 2 did not response to his applications, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner while urging for the relief sought for, would contend that when the government has prepared a scheme for providing job to one of the family members of the deceased government employee who died while in service, the authority cannot deny the benefit of the said scheme to the family members of a deceased government employee like the present petitioner. She further submits that the application for compassionate appointment is submitted within the period of one year as prescribed in the scheme. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled to get an appointment when he is eligible to be appointed as a Group-D employee. On the other hand, Ms. Sarma Lodh, learned Addl. G.A. while agreeing for disposal of the instant case at this stage would contend that appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. She further submits that if a member of the family of the deceased government employee who died while in service files an application to the appropriate authority for appointment on compassionate ground, then obviously the said authority is bound to dispose of the same in accordance with law, particularly considering the scheme as in force and admittedly in the instant case, it appears that the petitioner was not informed regarding the result of his applications (Annexure-G & H to the writ petition respectively). Thus, it would be proper to dispose of the matter with a simple direction to the respondent no. 2 for considering the case of the petitioner as per the provisions of the scheme and if the petitioner is found suitable and fulfills the condition in the scheme, then he may be provided job subject to availability of vacancy. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of the employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. The object of a scheme framed for compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased government employee to get over sudden financial crisis. But obviously such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased government employee. In the instant case, the petitioner in his writ petition has specifically stated that at the time of death his father deceased government employee left behind him his wife Smti. Mangeleswari Debbarma, his daughters Smti. Sabita Debbarma, Smti. Bibhu Rani Debbarma, Smti. Sarala Debbarma, and Smti. Tanuja Debbarma, his sons Sri Taritmoy Debbarma and Sri Pastur Debbarma and his mother Smti. Malati Debbarma and there is no other suitable person in his family for employment except him and the petitioner being the eldest son of his deceased father for maintaining the family members has applied for a suitable job under the “Die-in-harness” scheme. There is no doubt that the compassionate appointment is not a right, but when the government being a model employer and custodian of the right to livelihood of its citizen framed a scheme, then it should not deny the benefit of the scheme to the person for whom scheme is prepared subject to such person has fulfilled the condition of the scheme. In the instant case, admittedly the respondent no. 2 did not response to the applications filed by the petitioner, though the petitioner and his other family members were admittedly dependent on the deceased government employee and the applications were filed within time. It would not be proper for the Court to direct the respondent no. 2 to provide a suitable job to the petitioner as sought for on compassionate ground in exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But at the same time, it would also not be proper on the part of the Court to allow the respondent no. 2, the Director of Animal Resource Development Department, to sit over the applications filed by the petitioner for getting the benefit of a scheme framed by the government. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a simple direction to the Director, Animal Resource Development Department, respondent no. 2 herein, for disposing of the applications of the petitioner dated 31-03-2008 and 28-04-2012 (Annexure-G & H to the writ petition respectively) with humane touch taking note of the scheme framed by the State-respondents and upon consideration if it is found that the petitioner fulfils the condition made in the scheme, then he should be provided the fruits of the scheme. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from today. With the aforesaid order, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties. Download Date: 8-05-2017 16:05 1/1