Tripura High Court
Sri Uttam Kumar Paul vs The State Of Tripura on 25 July, 2024
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.492 of 2024
Sri Uttam Kumar Paul, Son of Late Sukumar Paul, resident of village-
Manikyanagar, P.O. Rokhia, P.S. Kalamchowra, District-Sepahijala, Tripura,
Pin-799102.
......... Petitioner (s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of
Power, New Secretariat Complex, Khejur Bagan, P. O. Secretariat S. O.,
P. S. New Capital Complex, District - West Tripura, Pin - 799010.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Power, New Secretariat Complex,
Khejur Bagan, P. O. Secretariat S.0, P. S. New Capital Complex, District -
West Tripura, Pin-799010.
3. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, (A Government of
Tripura Enterprise) represented by its Chairman (The Principal Secretary,
Power Department), Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited, New
Secretariat Complex, Khejur Bagan, P. O. Secretariat S.O, P. S. New
Capital Complex, District-West Tripura, Pin-799010.
4. The Managing Director, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited,
Tripura, Bidyut Bhavan, North Banamalipur, Agartala, District-West
Tripura, Pin-799001.
........ Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. D.C. Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B. N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate,
Mr. D.J. Saha, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
Order
25/07//2024
Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.
N. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Saha, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents.
[2] Petitioner's mother died as a regular employee of the respondent-
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) having been regularized
in service on 02.04.2011 while under the deputation from the Power
Department of the Government of Tripura. Several employees were deputed at
the time of creation of the Corporation with effect from 01.01.2005. The
employees of the Power Department during the period of their deputation under
the Corporation were covered under the Die-in-harness Scheme as per
memorandum dated 01.06.2005 (Annexure-8) issued by the General
Administration (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura. However, once the
services of such employees like the petitioner's mother was absorbed in the
Corporation, they no longer remain employee of the State Government.
Therefore, they were taken out of the cover of the Die-in-harness scheme
prevalent under the State Government which has been revised from time to
time. On this ground, the application of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment upon death of her mother on 09.10.2016 has been regretted by the
impugned order dated 02.05.2024 passed upon a direction of the writ Court in
WP(C) No.480/2023 to decide representation of the petitioner in accordance
with law. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejection dated 02.05.2024
(Annexure-6) has approached this Court.
[3] Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment rendered by the division bench of this Court in the case of Sri Subash
Sarkar versus The State of Tripura and others passed in W.A. No. 70/2018
dated 15.07.2019. However, the said case is distinguishable on facts as the
concerned employee i.e. the appellant's father died on 18.01.2006 while under
deputation under the TSECL from the Power Department, Government of
Tripura. During that period employees on deputation with the Corporation were
covered under the Die-in-harness scheme of the State Government. However,
since the Corporation has not framed any such scheme for compassionate
appointment or Die-in-harness scheme, full time employees under regular
employment of the Corporation are not governed by any such scheme. Claim for
compassionate appointment can be raised only in consonance with such a scheme
existing under the organization as it is an exception to the general rule of
appointment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This position in
law is well settled.
[4] As such, in the absence of scheme no appointments on
compassionate grounds could have been granted in favour of the petitioner on
account of death of her mother. The impugned order by which his claim has been
regretted, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality calling for interference by
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[5] Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending
application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(APARESH KUMAR SINGH), CJ
Munna S MUNNA SAHA
Date: 2024.07.26 16:20:50 +05'30'
