Tripura High Court
Smt. Rita Biswas vs The State Of Tripura And 3 Others on 6 January, 2023
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.144 of 2022
Smt. Rita Biswas
---Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tripura and 3 others.
---Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. C. Roy, Advocate
For respondent(s) : Mr. N. Majumder, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
06/01/2023
Heard Mr. D. C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
Also heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-TSECL.
Mr. Majumder has sought for an adjournment.
Considering the urgency, I have taken up this matter for disposal
as it is listed today in hearing column.
By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for compassionate appointment due to the death of her husband. The
petitioner has stated that her husband, late Prasanta Biswas was an
employee of TSECL and was working as Management Trainee
(Electrical)-B. Suddenly, he died on 22.10.2019 leaving the petitioner
and her minor two daughters in an abnormally helpless and dire state of
affairs. There was no other means for their livelihood except the income
of her deceased husband. The petitioner has prayed for compassionate
appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme applicable to the
respondents-Corporation.
As I noted earlier that the husband of the petitioner was an
employee of the TSECL. Mr. Majumder has submitted that the husband
of the petitioner was not an employee of TSECL, but, from his
appointment letter, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner was
regular employee of the TSECL. The Die-in-Harness scheme framed by
the Government of Tripura is applicable to the employees of the TSECL.
The petitioner submitted representation for compassionate appointment
under the Die-in-Harness Scheme on 29.06.2020, but, it was rejected.
I have perused the letter of non-consideration of the representation
of the petitioner. In the said communication dated 07.01.2021, the
authority of the TSECL has stated that the petitioner "is not eligible" for
Government job as per Memorandum, dated 01.07.2005, issued by the
Govt. of Tripura in the General Administration(P&T) Department.
A careful perusal of this regret letter dated 07.01.2021 makes it
crystal clear that the Die-in-Harness Scheme framed by Government of
Tripura in the General Administration (P&T) Department is applicable to
the TSECL also. However, the petitioner was not found eligible for
Government job. No reason was assigned as to why the petitioner was not
found eligible for Government job in terms of the Die-in-Harness Scheme
when the Scheme was well applicable to the TSECL also. I find no reason
to reject or regret the claim of the petitioner for appointment on
compassionate ground. It is clearly stated that the petitioner was a
graduate.
As I said earlier, from the letter of appointment dated 05.06.2014,
issued by the General Manager (Finance) and Company Secretary,
TSECL, Agartala, it is clear that the husband of the petitioner was
appointed on regular basis and his service was continued till his death
without any blemish.
Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents-TSECL has
drawn my attention to Memorandum dated 01.07.2005 on the subject of
providing benefits of Die-in-Harness Scheme to the employees of the
Department of Power, now re-named as Tripura State Electricity
Corporation Limited (TSECL) to justify that Die-in-Harness Scheme
framed by the Government of Tripura will not be applicable in favour of
the employees of TSECL.
Mr. Majumder, learned counsel has also placed reliance upon the
decision of this Court, titled as The State of Tripura Vs. Smt. Shiuli Dey
Choudhury, passed in case No.WA No.3 of 2019 disposed of vide
judgment and order dated 25.05.2019.
I have perused the said judgment. The facts of the case in WA No.
03 of 2019 is entirely different from the facts of the present case. In the
case of Smt. Shiuli Dey Choudhury (supra) this Court was dealing with a
claim of compassionate appointment due to the death of an employee,
who died in the year 2003, when the TSECL was not at all established.
Moreover, the husband of Smt. Dey Choudhury was a DRW/Contingent
worker. The scheme for regularisation of DRW/Contingent worker came
into force under 2009 notification. The benefit of Die-in-Harness Scheme
was not extended to the Daily Rated Workers/Contingent Workers prior
to the date of that notification.
In view of this, the Court in Smt. Dey Choudhury's case (Supra)
held that as the scheme was not applicable to husband of Smt. Dey
Choudhury as he died in the year 2003, prior to the introduction of the
scheme, she was not eligible to claim for compassionate appointment.
But, here the fact is that the husband of the petitioner was
appointed in the year 2014 after the establishment of the TSECL in the
year 2014 and he was continued with regular pay scale and was treated as
regular employee and he died in the year 2019 while in service under the
TSECL.
In the above context, the decision of this court in WA No.3 of
2019 is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
In the light of above discussion, I direct the respondents-TSECL
to appoint the petitioner, Smt. Rita Biswas, the wife of deceased
employee, Prasanta Biswas in a suitable post commensurate to her
qualification within a period of 3(three) months from today.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant writ
petition stands allowed and thus disposed.
JUDGE
Rohit
