The State Of Tripura And Ors vs Sri Mahesh Tripura
2021 Latest Caselaw 666 Tri

                                   Page - 1 of 4




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                 AGARTALA

                                WA No.93/2021

The State of Tripura and Ors.
                                                    ............... Appellant(s).
                                         Vs.

Sri Mahesh Tripura
                                                   ................ Respondent(s).

For Appellant(s) : Mr. D Bhattacharaya, Govt. Advocate, Mr. Partha Saha, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sankar Kr. Deb, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Bidesh Debnath, Advocate.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. S G CHATTOPADHYAY

_O_R_D_E_ R_

05/7/2021 (Akil Kureshi, CJ).

This writ appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28th February 2000 passed in

WP(C) No.506/2018.

[2] Brief facts are as under :

The original petitioner is the eldest son of deceased Bijoy Singh

Tripura who was employed in the Fire Service Department of the

Government of Tripura as a Driver. While in service, Bijoy Singh expired

on 5th November 2013. The petitioner thereupon applied to the State Page - 2 of 4

Government for appointment on compassionate grounds. This application

was, however, turned down by the Government by a communication dated

8th October, 2014 citing the reason that from the ration cards it appears

that the petitioner was living separately from other family members before

the death of his father. After one more unsuccessful attempt at persuading

the authorities to give him appointment on compassionate grounds the

petitioner approached this Court by filing above numbered petition. The

learned Single Judge noted that all the rest of the family members of the

deceased Government servant were agreeable to the appointment being

granted to the petitioner. He was the eldest son of the deceased and had

undertaken to support the rest of the family. The learned Single Judge was

of the opinion that the mere fact that there was a separate ration card

would not establish that the petitioner was not part of the family of the

deceased Government Servant at the time of his death. It was noticed that

after the death of the Government servant, in any case, the ration card

issued by the authority showed the name of the petitioner with the rest of

the family members. The original respondents were, therefore, directed to

appoint the petitioner under Die-in-harness Scheme.

[3] Learned Government Advocate submitted that since the

petitioner was not residing with the deceased Government servant at the Page - 3 of 4

time of his death he was not qualified to seek compassionate appointment.

The Government verified the ration cards of the family of the petitioner as

well as of the deceased Government servant. He, therefore, submitted that

the learned Single Judge committed an error. Learned senior counsel Mr.

Somik Deb for the original petitioner, supported the judgment of the

Single Judge and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

[4] The record would show that the authorities had issued a ration

card dated 9th April 2013 in which the names of the deceased Government

servant, his wife and petitioner as the eldest son were included besides

other family members. Subsequently, upon death of the Government

servant his name was deleted and his wife became the main card holder. It

is true that a separate ration card was also issued in favour of the

petitioner which included the name of the petitioner, his wife and minor

child which was also dated 9th April 2013. However, the significant aspect

of the matter is that in both these ration cards, the address of the card

holders shown was of the same location. In this context, the explanation

of the petitioner made in the petition that all along he continued to live

with the rest of the family but only for convenience a separate ration card

was issued becomes plausible. It also emerges from the record that after Page - 4 of 4

the death of the government servant, separate ration card in the name of

the petitioner was de-activated.

[5] In light of such facts, we do not find that the learned Single

Judge has committed any error in making the observations to the effect

that mere issuance of a separate ration card would not establish that the

petitioner was not part of the family of the deceased Government servant

at the time of his death. The learned Single Judge has observed that mere

temporary shift of the location of residence would not be mean separation

from the family. We can go a step further. As noted earlier, there was not

even shift of location by the petitioner and he continued to reside at the

same location. It is entirely possible that for convenience same house or

hut may have been sub-divided.

[6] In the result, writ appeal is dismissed. At the request of learned

Government Advocate, time for complying with the directions contained

in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is extended by a period of

3(three) months from today.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed.

      ( S G CHATTOPADHYAY, J )                     ( AKIL KURESHI, CJ )


Sukhendu