Tripura High Court
Smt. Binisha Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura And Ors on 6 May, 2022
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)No.820 of 2021
Smt. Binisha Debbarma
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and Ors.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Datta, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D. Sharma, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
06/05/2022
Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for
the respondents.
02. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has submitted that the
petitioner had approached the respondents by filing the application in
the format for compassionate appointment, owing to death of her
father namely, Chinna Kumar Debbarma who passed away on
23.05.2017. At the time of death, the petitioner's father was working
as Group-D employee under the Department of Science, Technology
& Environment, Government of Tripura. It has been further stated by
the petitioner that his father was below 50 years being aged about 49
years on the day he breathed his last. But her case was not
considered and reason for rejection can be had from the
communication No.F.4(419)/DSTE/ESTT/2018/6412-13 dated
27.09.2021 [Annexure-13 to the writ petition]. It appears therefrom
that the petitioner's case could not be considered for compassionate
appointment in view of the final order dated 26.08.2021 delivered in
C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1,
West Tripura, Agartala.
03. There is no dispute that the petitioner's name was not
incorporated in the succession certificate as issued by the said court
as she was the daughter of Smt. Biswapati Debbarma. While
disposing of the case No. C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018 by the judgment
dated 10.03.2022, The Civil Judge had observed that the petitioner in
CM(Succ)260 of 2018 is entitled to get the succession certificate for
estate left by her deceased husband. It has been further observed in
the appeal filed against the final order dated 26.08.2021 delivered in
the appeal from the order dated 26.08.2021 that Smt. Biswapati
Debbarma is not legally married wife of Chinna Kumar Debbarma,
since deceased. She is merely the second wife and her marriage is
not legal. Later on, it has been held that all the legal heirs including
said Biswapati Debbarma, the second wife are equally entitled to the
share of the properties led by Chinna Kumar Debbarma. But in para-
9, it has been further narrated that the evidence of DW-3 is also
heresay evidence as he heard from the meeting from the others but,
those persons are not adduced. DW-2 deposed that after marriage,
she went to the house of her husband and found that his first wife
deserted him permanently giving him divorce socially. Thus, the
source of knowledge of DW.2, in respect of desertion and divorce, is
quite not clear. Thus, the evidence of DWs are not reliable.
04. Notwithstanding those observations as noted, finally, it
has been held that it cannot be stated that the respondent No.1 was
divorced by the deceased. In view of the above finding returned by
the appellate court, the appellant No.2 Smt. Biswapati Debbarma has
been declared as not legally married, she is merely the second wife
and her marriage is not legal. But thereafter in para-19 of the said
judgment dated 10.03.2022, it has been observed that it is found
that the marriage of the appellant No.2 is not legal and the appellant
No.2 is not entitled to get any service benefit as of right, but
considering the humanitarian ground, service benefits can be made
available to the appellant No.2 inasmuch as during his life time, the
deceased employee treated her as his wife and, both the wives
stayed together.
05. This court finds it very difficult to find a legal balance in
those findings. Further, it has been stated by Mr. R. Datta, learned
counsel that the said decision has not been challenged by anyone.
Thus, the observation of the appellate court, all the respondents
being wife, sons and daughters and the appellant No.1(the petitioner
herein) being the daughter and the appellant No.2 being the second
wife are equally entitled to get the benefit of service as mentioned
and described.
06. By the communication dated 27.09.2021 [Annexure-13 to
the writ petition] it has been apprised that the petitioner cannot be
considered for compassionate appointment in view of the final order
dated 26.08.2020 delivered in C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018. The said
embargo has been removed by the final order passed by the
appellate court dated 10.03.2020 [Annexure-15 to the writ petition to
the rejoinder]. Having regard to the said order dated 10.03.2020, the
respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner
afresh and take a decision on appointing the petitioner under the Die-
in-harness Scheme within a period of 3(three) months from today.
The outcome of the said exercise shall be communicated to the
petitioner without delay.
Having observed thus, this petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Moumita
