Tripura High Court
Mr. P.K. Pal vs Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee on 7 October, 2021
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.724/2021
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Pal, Advocate,
Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
Mrs. N.C. Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
Order
07/10/2021
The petitioner had applied for appointment on compassionate
grounds which was rejected by the authorities on 25.09.2018 on the ground
that he was not eligible for such appointment under die-in-harness scheme,
instead he would be eligible for one time financial assistance of
Rs.1,00,000/-. The record would suggest that the mother of the petitioner
was a Government servant who died in harness. At the time of death of his
mother the petitioner was 16 years 10 months and 22 days old. The request
of the petitioner for appointment was refused on the ground that as per the
scheme the applicant must be minimum 17 years of age on the date of death
of the Government servant. The petitioner had challenged this decision by
filing WP(C) No.572 of 2019 which was disposed of on 10.12.2019 in
which after referring to the various provisions of the scheme applicable to
the petitioner looking to the facts of the case, following observations were
made:
"[14] In the present case, we have noticed that the mother of
the petitioner expired leaving behind the petitioner as her
elder son who has just short of 17 years of age, a cut off
provided in the Scheme for eligibility for making application
for appointment on compassionate grounds. There was no
other older sibling. The petitioner had a younger brother. The
petitioner's father was over aged and therefore, not eligible
for appointment in any case. Considering such factors and in
particular, considering the fact that the petitioner's age was
only about 6 weeks short of the minimum age required for
making application, in my opinion, it is the fit case where the
Government should be asked to exercise the power of
relaxation."
Eventually the petition was disposed of with following
directions:
"[15] Under the circumstances, impugned communication
dated 25th September, 2018 is set aside. The petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment shall be
considered on merits with respect to which I have express no
opinion. Decision on merits, whether to offer appointment on
compassionate grounds on the basis of relevant considerations
or not, shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner
within a period of 3(three) months from today."
As per this judgment thus the competent authority was required
to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on
merits. The question of the petitioner being underage on the date of death of
his mother was already decided in his favour.
The Director of Elementary Education thereupon passed a fresh
order on 10.03.2020 in which for rejecting the request of the petitioner for
appointment he had stated as under:
"WHEREAS, after analysis and examination of all
relevant rules and the documents of Sri Subhojit Shil, it is
observed that Sri Shil does not satisfy the prescribed age
bracket with the relaxation of 01(one) year for
compassionate appointment under the Revised Die-in
harness Scheme-2015.
AND
Therefore, Sri Subhojit Shil, the eldest son of Late Gita
Debnath, Ex-UGT is hereby intimated that there is no scope to
consider him for Government employment under die-in-
harness Scheme but Sri Shil can apply for Financial
Assistance under the Revised Die-in-harness Scheme-2015."
I am of the strong prima facie view that the said authority has
completely misconstrued the order passed by the Court. The question of the
age limit and such age limit being within the range of relaxation permitted
under the Scheme was already gone into. The direction to the authority was
to consider the case of the petitioner on merits. It was, therefore, not open
for the said authority to once again bring back the question of the age of the
petitioner at the time of the death of his mother. Without so saying, the
Director of Elementary Education has disregarded the Court order and in my
prima facie view acted contemptuously. I wonder why the petitioner did not
choose to file a contempt petition against the said officer.
Under the circumstances, while issuing notice returnable on
11.11.2021, the respondent No.2 is directed to examine the case of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment on MERIT and place the decision
before the Court "WITHOUT FAIL" on the returnable date. Any non-
compliance of these directions would result into serious consequences
against the respondent No.2. In case these directions are not complied with,
he shall remain personally present before the Court on the returnable date to
explain his conduct. This order shall be communicated by the learned
Government Advocate to the said authority for its compliance.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ
Pulak
