Tripura High Court
Smti Priyanka Das vs The State Of Tripura on 10 May, 2024
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.27 of 2024
1. Smti Priyanka Das,
Aged about 24 years, daughter of late Badal Das,
Resident of South Bhuratali, P.O. Fulchari- 799143,
P.S. Manu Bazar, District- South Tripura;
...............Petitioner(s).
Versus
1. The State of Tripura,
to be represented by the Secretary, Department of Health,
Government of India, New Civil Secretariat,
P.O. Kunjaban-799006, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District- West Tripura;
2. The Director,
Directorate of Health Services, Government of Tripura,
New Civil Secretariat, P.O. Kunjaban-799006,
P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West Tripura.
3. The Sub-Divisional Medical Officer,
Sabroom, South Tripura.
............Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Senior Advocate.
: Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
: Mr. R. Nath, Advocate.
: Mr. P. Biswas, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A.
Date of Hearing : 12.04.2024
Date of Judgment : 10.05.2024
Whether fit for reporting: No
_B_E_ F_O_R_E_
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
_J_ U_ D_ G_ M_E_N_T_
The Writ Petition is filed praying for a direction to
provide a job under Die-in-Harness Scheme to the petitioner and
also for quashing Order No.F.2(334-N)-MS/ESTT-III/99/1376(VI)
dated 25.08.2023 issued by Directorate of Health Services,
Government of Tripura whereby the prayer of the petitioner for
providing a job under Die-in-Harness Scheme was regretted.
[2] The father of the petitioner namely Badal Das died in
service on 11.02.2021 leaving behind his wife Smti. Sawpna Das,
two daughters namely Smti. Priyanka Das (the petitioner) and
Smti. Priya Das while he was working as a Night Guard in the
establishment of respondent No.3. As per clause 9 of the scheme
for compassionate appointment/benefit for the government
employees of Tripura published vide No.F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated
02.03.2019 (Annexure-8 of the Writ Petition), the application for
Government appointment or for admissible financial assistance, is
required to be submitted within one year from the date of
occurrence of the deceased government servant, provided that for
admissible financial assistance, time period for application can,
however, be extended by one year on valid grounds.
[3] The wife of the deceased in this case namely, Smti
Swapna Das initially filed one application on 07.04.2022 i.e.
beyond one year for providing her suitable job under Die-in-
Harness Scheme which was regretted by the respondents vide
letter bearing No.F.2(334-N)-MS/Estt-III/1999/467(VI) dated
17.07.2023 (Annexure-3 of the Writ Petition) on the ground that
she did not possess minimum qualification for the proposed post.
Meanwhile, the present petitioner applied for such post on
04.07.2023 which was also rejected by the respondents vide letter
No.F.2(334-N)-MS/ESTT-III/99/1376(VI) dated 25.08.2023
(Annexure-6 of the Writ Petition) on the ground of submitting
delayed application. However, while communicating the decision of
the department in respect of application of Smti. Swapna Das
(wife) vide letter dated 17.07.2023, she was informed that she
might apply for special pension under category Support-I.
[4] As per the scheme, the nature of support as provided to
the family of the government servant died in harness are as
follows:
"3. Nature of Support:-
3.1 Government appointment or financial assistance
of `1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) or `10.00 lakh (Rupees
ten lakh) only, as the case may be, depending upon the
category to which the affected Government Servant
belongs to.
3.2. Support Category-1:
If the age of the affected Government Servant is
equal to or more than 50 years on the date of
occurrence, then the family will be paid Special Pension
amounting to difference between last drawn salary and
pension in addition to the normal pension till the
affected employee would have attained 60 years of age,
provided that there is no earning member in the family.
After attaining 60 years of age, only normal pension will
be paid.
3.3 Support Category-2:
If there is an earning member in the family of the
affected Government Servant, then the next of kin will
be paid a lump sum ex-gratia of `1.00 lakh (Rupees one
lakh) only.
3.4 Support Category-3:
If the age of the affected Government Servant is
less than 50 years on the date of occurrence and there
is dependent family member eligible for getting
Government job as per eligibility criteria mentioned in
this Memorandum and there is no earning member in
the family, in such case suitable Government
employment (Group-C & Group-D) post only shall be
admissible subject to fulfilling other required
qualifications as per Recruitment Rules of the respective
post. Such employment will be subject to availability of
direct recruitment vacancy in the parent Department
and maximum 15% of total available vacancy as on First
April of the concerned Financial Year in the parent
Department may be utilized for this purpose.
3.5 Support Category-4:
If the occurrence date of the affected
Government Servant is before attaining the age of 50
years and there is neither earning member in the family
nor any dependent eligible member for Government
employment, in such case one time financial assistance
of `10.00 lakh (Rupees ten lakh) only shall be given to
the next of kin.
3.6 Explanation:-
i. If the candidate belongs to support
category (3) does not get employment in the parent
Department of the affected Government Servant within
one year from the date of occurrence due to non-
availability of vacancy in that Department, then the
candidate may be considered for posting in other
Departments with the concurrence of the Finance
Department.
ii. Eligibility to be determined as on date of
occurrence of the affected Government Servant.
iii. One family will be eligible to get only one
benefit out of Support Category-1 to 4 mentioned
above."
Thus, the wife of the deceased was treated to be
eligible under category Support-I vide letter dated 17.07.2023.
[5] Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel referring to
death certificate of the deceased (Annexure-1 of the Writ Petition)
submitted that age of the deceased as per said death certificate
was 49 years at the time of death and, therefore, the petitioner or
other dependent family members could not come within the
category Support-I which is applicable where the government
servant dies at the age of 50 years or more. Referring to clause
no.12 of the scheme, Mr. Biswas, learned Senior Counsel
strenuously argued that it was the duty of the department to
apprise about the terms and condition of the scheme to the family
members of the deceased and to assist them in filing proper
application in time, but failure on the part of the respondents to do
the same, they should now provide the petitioner a government
job under Die-in-Harness Scheme and, therefore, a direction was
required to be issued to the respondents in this regard. Learned
Senior Counsel also contended that the first application filed by the
wife was not rejected on the ground of delay despite the same was
filed beyond one year from the date of death, rather on the ground
of insufficiency of educational qualification and, therefore, the
respondents ought to have provided the similar treatment to the
present petitioner also by not rejecting the petitioner on the
ground of delay. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that
the petitioner was the family member of a Group-D employee and
being rustic persons were not acquainted with the relevant
procedure for filing application under Die-in-Harness Scheme in
time and none apprised them also in this regard.
[6] Mr. De, learned Addl. G.A. seriously opposed the prayer
of the petitioner arguing that the petition of the petitioner was
hopelessly time barred and more so as per Clause 12 of the
Scheme it was not the duty of the department to enlighten the
family members of the deceased about the scheme in details,
rather it was duty of the deceased himself to do the same and,
therefore, the petitioner now cannot take benefit of their own fault
or the fault of the deceased. According to Mr. De, learned Addl.
G.A. the second application i.e. the application of the petitioner
was not filed within the period of one year and, therefore, the
respondents were completely justified in rejecting the claim.
[7] Mr. De, learned Addl. G.A. to gain support for his
contention relied on a decision of this Court in case of Nayan Paul
vs. The State of Tripura & Ors., 2020 2 GauLT 589, wherein
at para 19 it was observed that no such direction could be given
for providing Government job under Die-in-Harness scheme when
the application of the petitioner is dehors the scheme. Mr. De,
learned Addl. G.A. also relied on another decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India & Anr. Vs. Ram
Kesh Yadav & Anr., 2007 Legal Eagle (SC) 239; (equivalent
citation 2007 AIR (SC) 1421) where in at para 7 it was held that
the employer cannot be directed to act contrary to the terms of its
policy governing compassionate appointments. In N.C. Santhosh
vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2020 Legal Eagle (SC) 260;
(equivalent citation 2020 AIR (SC) 1401) as referred by Mr. De,
learned Addl. G.A., it was held by the Apex Court that the
prevailing rules of the scheme as in force on the date of the filing
of the application for compassionate appointment should be the
basis for consideration of the claim for such compassionate
appointment and not the scheme applicable on the date of death
of government employee. Therefore, learned Addl. G.A. prayed for
rejection of the Writ Petition.
[8] In view of above said principles of Law as laid down by
the Apex Court in Food Corporation of India (Supra), the court
cannot now direct the respondents to provide a job under Die-in-
Harness scheme to the petitioner when the application was filed
beyond the time limit as prescribed under Clause 9 of the scheme
as indicated above. Said Clause 9 also does not give any authority
to the respondents to extend the time for submission of the
application for the job beyond the period of one year from the date
of death of the deceased. Thus, the respondents were justified in
not allowing the application of the petitioner going beyond what
was provided in the scheme itself. So far the Clause 12 of the
scheme regarding general awareness as referred by Mr. Biswas,
learned Senior Counsel is concerned, said Clause also does not
cast any duty upon the respondents to sensitise or enlighten the
family members of the deceased about the scheme, rather it was
duty of the deceased himself to do the same. For reference Clause
12 is extracted below:
"12. General Awareness:
It is the duty and responsibility of every
Government Servant serving under the State
Government/Teaching and non-teaching employees of
Privately Managed Government Aided Schools/Home
Guards/ Woman Guards/ Boarder Wing Home Guards to
brief/enlighten his/her family about this Scheme in
details."
[9] In view of above, it is held that the petitioner is not
entitled for a direction from this Court towards the respondents for
providing her a suitable job under Die-in-Harness scheme and,
therefore, no such direction can be passed in favour of the
petitioner in this case. However, as it appears from the death
certificate of the deceased (Annexure-1 of the Writ Petition), at the
time of death, the age of the deceased Government employee was
49 years, and if said age is correctly reflected, the survivors or
dependents of the deceased, as per scheme would come within the
Support Category-4 entitling them to one time financial assistance
of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lakh) only. The respondents are,
therefore, directed to verify the age of the deceased father of the
petitioner and to extend such financial benefit of Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees ten lakh) only to the next of kin of the deceased under
Support Category-4 of the above said scheme dated 02.03.2019
(Annexure-8 of the Writ Petition), if the age of the deceased is
found below 50 years at the time of his death, otherwise necessary
benefit will be provided to the dependant family members of the
deceased as per other suitable support category of the scheme.
Entire exercise should be done within 8(eight) weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.
With above said direction, the Writ Petition is disposed
of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed
of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA DUTTA
Date: 2024.05.10 16:09:03 +05'30'
Riki
