Tripura High Court
Smt. Priyanka Das vs The State Of Tripura on 9 April, 2025
Page 1 of 8
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
Review Pet. No. 32 of 2024
Smt. Priyanka Das,
Aged about 24 years, daughter of late Badal Das,
Resident of South Bhuratali, P.O. Fulchari, P.S. Manu Bazar,
District-South Tripura, Pin. 799143.
.....Petitioner(s).
Vs.
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,
under the Directorate of Health Services,
Government of Tripura.
......Respondent(s).
For Petitioner (s) :Mr. P Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. S Bhattacharjee, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. K De, Addl. GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
09.04.2025
Heard Mr. P Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel
assisted by Mr. S Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners and Mr. K De, learned Addl. GA appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The present petition for review has been filed in
respect of the judgment dated 10.05.2024 passed by this court
in WP(C) No. 27/2024 wherein the present petitioner Smt.
Priyanka Das, daughter of Lt. Badal Das, who died while in
service on 11.02.2021 leaving behind his wife Smt. Swapna Das
and two daughters namely, Smt. Priyanka Das (present review
petitioner) and Smt. Priya Das, was the writ petitioner. Lt. Badal
Das was admittedly working as a Night Guard at the time of his
death in the establishment of Sub Divisional Medical Officer,
Sabroom, South Tripura.
[3] After his death, initially said wife Smt. Swapna Das,
applied for a job under Die-in-Harness Scheme and as reflected
in the impugned judgment such application was filed on
07.04.2022 i.e. beyond one year of death of said Badal Das
whereas, as per the related scheme for compassionate
appointment/benefit of government employees of Tripura issued
under notification No. F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 2nd March,
2019, for such compensionate appointment and also for
admissible financial assistance, request has to be made within
one year from the date of death of the deceased government
servant provided that for admissible financial assistance time
period of such application may be extended by one year by the
appropriate authority on valid grounds.
[4] Admittedly, such petition of Smt. Swapna Das was
regretted by the respondents by the letter dated 17.07.2023 on
the ground that she did not possess the minimum qualification
from the proposed post. Meanwhile, before such rejection, the
present petitioner applied for such post under the Die-in-
Harness Scheme on 04.07.2023 which was also rejected by the
respondents vide their letter dated 25.08.2023 on the ground of
filing of delayed application and being aggrieved thereby she
filed the WP(C) No.27/2024.
[5] This court while passing the judgment held the
followings:
"[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 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."
[6] Now the present petitioner has filed the review
petition for reviewing the said judgment mainly on the ground
that an important fact was suppressed from the side of
respondents that not on 04.07.2022 rather prior to the date on
15.07.2021, said wife Smt. Swapna Das submitted her petition
for such job under Die-in-Harness Scheme and said petition was
completely within time as per the relevant provision of the
scheme and the said application was also forwarded by Sub
Divisional Medical Officer, Sabroom to the Directorate of Health
Services, Govt. of Tripura vide their letter dated 15.07.2021
(Annexure-2 of the present review petition).
[7] Mr. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel emphatically
submits that the petition for job under Die-in-Harness was
submitted by Smt. Swapna Das well within the time but said
letter dated 15.07.2021 was not in her knowledge and
possession, when the writ petition was filed and very recently
that has been discovered and therefore, the review petition has
been filed on the ground of discovery of new facts.
[8] Mr. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel further submits
that if said document is taken into consideration it will be
evident that the mother of the petitioner approached for such
job under Die-in-Harness Scheme within time and therefore,
the present petitioner is entitled to get benefit of such scheme
to be favoured with a job under such scheme.
[9] Learned Sr. counsel continues to argue that if said
document would have been placed before this court in the
earlier writ petition, certainly the decision of the court that Smt.
Priyanka Das filed the petition beyond the prescribed period of
time would not have been there and moreover, it was the duty
of the respondents being custodian of said document to place
such fact in the original writ petition but they have also
suppressed the same. Thus, according to Mr. Roy Barman,
learned Sr. counsel, this is a clear case of discovery of new facts
and therefore, the impugned judgment may be reviewed.
[10] Mr. K De, learned Addl. GA, on the other hand,
submits that it is not true that the respondents have suppressed
the fact of submission of petition by Smt. Swapna Das prior to
the date 15.07.2021 rather the writ petitioner in her writ
petition herself stated that Smt. Swapna Das (her mother)
submitted such petition on 07.04.2022. Learned Addl. GA Mr.
De, also further submits that the claim of Smt. Swapna Das
was rejected basically on the ground that she did not possess
the required qualification and not on the ground that her claim
was time barred.
[11] Learned Addl. GA also adds to his submission that
the present petitioner is not said Smt. Swapna Das rather her
daughter Smt. Priyanka Das and therefore, said letter dated
15.07.2021 (Annexure-2) has no relevancy in this matter.
[12] This court has given due consideration to the
submission of both sides and also perused the records.
[13] It has been the categorical finding of this court in
paragraph 8 of the judgment that application of the present
petitioner Smt. Priyanka Das was beyond the time limit as
prescribed under clause 9 of the scheme as indicated above and
said clause does not give any authority to the respondents to
extend the time of submission of application for job beyond the
period of one year from the date of death of the deceased and
therefore, the respondents were justified in not allowing the
application of the petitioner by not going beyond what was
prescribed in the scheme itself. No where this Court observed
that the application of the mother of the present petitioner was
time barred and therefore the letter 15.7.2021 issued by Sub-
Divisional Medical Officer, Sabroom has no relevancy in the
matter of application submitted by the present writ petitioner
Priyanka before the respondent-Authority.
[14] Though, Mr. Roy Barman, learned Sr. counsel on that
point also tries to convince that it would be a too technical
approach if the matter is considered taking the date of filing of
the application by the petitioner herself for such compassionate
appointment separately in isolation with the application
submitted by her mother ignoring the fact that her mother had
already applied for job within specific time period, but such
submission doesnot appears to be acceptable, for, the provision
of Rule 1 of Order XLVII of CPC enables the court to review it's
judgment for the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced
by her at the time when the judgment/order was passed by this
court. But as already stated above, said letter dated 15.07.2021
(Annexure-2) relates to the application of Smt. Swapna Das and
not of Smt. Priyanka Das and as per clause 9 of the scheme
application of the petitioner herself ought to have been
submitted within one year from the date of death of her father.
Her mother Swapna Das did not challenge the decision of the
Authority regarding rejection of her claim, rather it is the
petitioner who has challenged the rejection of her own claim.
This Court in it's judgment categorically observed that the
application of the present petitioner was submitted beyond the
prescribed period and under this review jurisdiction, this Court
cannot alter this finding based on a correspondence relating to
the claim of the mother of the petitioner. If there is any
grievance of the present petitioner regarding such observation
of the Court in the judgment on the ground that such
observation or decision was erroneous, the petitioner can/could
challenge the same in the appropriate forum.
In view of above, this court finds no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment.
Accordingly, this review petition is rejected. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGE
SATABDI DUTTA Date: 2025.04.11 13:41:31 -07'00'
Satabdi
