Tripura High Court
Mr. P.K. Dhar vs None on 9 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Petition No.4 of 2021
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. P.K. Dhar, Sr. GA
For Respondent(s) : None
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
09.02.2021
Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned senior GA appearing for the review petitioners
has submitted that by the notification No.F.1(2)-GA(P&T)/15 dated
26.12.2015 the Government had modified the Die-in-Harness Scheme by
re-defining the definition of 'family' on reframing the earlier policy. The said
re-definition is reads as under:
"2. Dependent family member shall cover the following:
(i) wife or husband, as the case may be;
(ii) legitimate children;
(iii) legitimate step Children;
(iv) adopted Children;
(v) dependant daughter-in-law;
(vi) dependent parents;
(vii) dependent unmarried brother (s);
(viii) dependent unmarried sister (s) and
(ix) dependent widowed daughter (s)
Provided that a married son or daughter-in-law or widowed daughter, if he/she
lives/used to live separately from other members of the family on or before the
death of the Government employee shall not be considered as family member and
at the same time he/she shall not be treated as earning member of the family of
the government employee for the purpose of providing benefits under the Scheme
only."
Mr. Dhar, learned senior GA has, particularly referring to the said
memorandum, submitted that by implication of the policy, the married
daughter has been excluded from the definition of the dependant family.
Thus, the order as questioned in this review petition i.e. the judgment and
order dated 18.02.2020 delivered in W.P.(C) No.1347 [ Smt. Rinki Bardhan
Saha vs. the State of Tripura] requires review.
This court has given an anxious consideration to the circular and the
grounds in Paras-8, 9 & 10 of the said judgment and order dated
18.02.2020. That apart, it has been observed in Para-4 of the said
judgment, having regard to the memorandum dated 26.12.2015
[Annexure-1 to this writ review petition] that 'on the ground of
constitutionality, the said memorandum has been interfered with'. It is on
record that the state has challenged that order in the superior forum. Same
analogy would squarely cover the present controversy that a married
daughter, if is found dependant and was living with the deceased employee
at the time of his/her death, she is entitled to be considered for
compassionate appointment. Denial on the ground of marriage when other
conditions are met infringe the constitutional guarantee of equality as
provided in Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, this court does not find
any merit in this petition to interfere the order in question under its review
jurisdiction. Even though no notice has been issued to the writ petitioner,
this court would extend the time for implementation of the judgment and
order dated 18.02.2020 by 2[two] months considering the pendency of the
review petition.
In view of the above, this petition stands dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. P. K. Dhar, learned senior GA
in the course of the day.
JUDGE
Sujay
