Tripura High Court
Parul Begam vs State Of Tripura And 2 Ors on 17 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C)No.746 of 2021
Parul Begam
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. K. Pal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
17/01/2022
Heard Mr. P. K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing
for the respondents.
02. There is no dispute that Mubarak Hussain, husband of the
petitioner died in harness on 15.08.2013 while working as the
Constable of Police under the Home Department. The petitioner
applied for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness
Scheme for her son, Atikul Islam. By the order dated 16.07.2014, the
respondents refused to provide a Government job to the son of the
petitioner. The report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate revealed that
Atikul Islam was living away from the family of the deceased. The
petitioner felt aggrieved by that action and filed a writ petition being
WP(C)No.462 of 2014 in this court.
03. According to the petitioner, Atikul Islam cannot be treated
to have separated from the family of the deceased employee.
Definition of the family cannot be different from what has been
expounded by the Mohamedan law. In Mohamedan law there is no
disintegration of the family in any manner. This plea had been
discarded by this court by the judgment dated 19.06.2015 delivered
in WP(C)No.462 of 2014 [Parul Begam vs. The State of Tripura &
Ors.]. It has been observed categorically in the said judgment that
the petitioner has failed to adduce any evidence to show that Atikul
Islam, son of the petitioner was a member of the family of the
deceased employee at the time of his death. The said judgment was
challenged in WA 187 of 2019 but the said appeal was dismissed for
being barred by limitation. Thus, the said judgment dated 19.06.2015
delivered in the Writ Appeal reached its finality. Despite that, the
petitioner has filed the present writ petition urging the similar relief.
04. The petitioner has strenuously urged this court to set
aside the said decision of the respondents as contained in the letter
dated 16.07.2014 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition]. The challenge in
this writ petition is based on the contention that the earlier decision
was gravely wrong and the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit
will not apply, on the contrary, the principle of restitution is attracted.
Thus this court should revisit the matrix for purpose of restitution as
in accordance to the Muslim personal laws, her son is entitled to get
compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme.
05. The respondents represented by Mr. M. Debbarma,
learned Addl. G.A. have filed their reply and raised a serious objection
as to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the order
passed in the previous writ petition. It has been asserted that the
definition of the family as provided under the Die-in-harness scheme
would apply for purpose of compassionate appointment. That
definition has been curved out for a special purpose. In terms of the
said definition, the petitioner's son cannot be treated as the member
of the family left by the deceased employee.
06. Having appreciated the definition of the 'family' as
provided in the memorandum dated 24.09.2011 [Annexure-R/1 to
the reply filed by the respondents], the petitioner's son namely Atikul
Islam cannot be treated as the member of the family. Hence, on
merit also the prayer cannot be acceded to. In the considered opinion
of this court, when an has been decided in the previous writ petition,
the subsequent writ petition cannot be maintained on the same issue
between the same parties.
Hence, this writ petition is bound to be dismissed. It is
ordered accordingly.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Moumita
