Sri Raj Rudra Paul vs The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 616 Tri

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                       WP(C)No.627 of 2021

Sri Raj Rudra Paul
                                                      ----Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

The State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
                                                   ----Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T. K. Choudhury, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. G.A.

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

                                  Order
01/07/2022
           Heard     Mr.    T.    K.   Choudhury,   learned   counsel

appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma,

learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

02. By means of this petition, the petitioner has urged

for compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme

on account of his father's death. His father died in-harness on

22.12.2017 while he was working as Class-IV employee in the

Government degree college, Kamalpur, Dhalai. On 04.10.2018,

the petitioner made an application to the concerned authority

for giving him a job under Die-in-Harness Scheme

commensurate with his educational qualification. On the same

date the Principal-in-Charge, Govt. Degree College, Kamalpur,

Dhalai Tripura vide a letter No.F.2(1)GDC/KMP/97/367

forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Director,

Directorate of Higher Education, Government of Tripura for

considering his prayer.

03. The Director of Higher Education on 13.01.2020 vide

a letter No.F.7(29-291)-DHE/NG/2018 stated that the petitioner

has only attained the age of 16 years 07 months and 12 days as

on the date of death of his father. The minimum age limit with

admissible relaxation is 17 years. As such, the petitioner is not

eligible for Govt. job under Die-in-Harness Scheme as per

notification under No.F.1(2)-GA(P&T)/2015 dated 26.12.2015.

So his prayer was rejected. But the Hon'ble Division Bench of

this High Court in Case No.W.A. 45 of 2014 judgment and order

dated 22.11.2018 has directed that the state respondents to

appoint a person who was about little more than 7 years at the

time of death of his father and upon attaining the age of

majority within the stipulated period of year he can apply for

benefit under the scheme.

04. As per the notification dated 26.12.2015 the main

object of the Die-in-Harness Scheme is to extend benefits either

by an appointment in Government service on compassionate

ground or admissible financial assistance to an eligible

dependant member of the family of a deceased Government

servant in the event of death while in service provided that

there is no earning member in the family of the deceased. The

intention is to relieve the family of the Government servant

from financial destitution and to help it get over the financial

hardship. Employment would be provided to one of the eligible

dependents of the deceased Government servant.

05. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner made his application on

04.08.2018 for compassionate appointment after death of his

father within one year. He further submits that petitioner's

application was rejected after about one year 3 months and 9

days from the date of prayer and this is quite illegal. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has finally submitted that the

petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Die-in-Harness

Scheme according to his educational qualification and he prayed

for the same.

06. Learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents

has contended that educational qualification is not only the

criteria for determining the eligibility of the job-seeker for giving

the suitable Govt. job but it has certain parameters to examine

the capability of the candidate in terms of age limit also.

Learned Addl. G.A. further submits that all the criteria for

providing Govt. job under Die-in-Harness Scheme be fulfilled.

Finally, learned Addl. G.A. shall submitted that the petitioner

only attained the age of 16 years 07 months and 12 days on the

date of death of his father, so his prayer is not considered.

07. After hearing both the parties, this court is of the

view that the respondents are directed to consider the case of

the petitioner by having a pragmatic approach in granting

compassionate appointment. This decision shall be taken within

a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this order. It is needless to observe that on any lame excuse the

respondents shall not deprive the legitimate right of the

petitioner.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands

disposed of.

JUDGE

Moumita