Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 784 (GAU)

Rajesh Chakraborty v. State of Tripura and Ors.

2007-12-04

HRISHIKESH ROY

body2007
1. Heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel who represents the respondents. 2. The petitioner is before this court to challenge an order dated 20.5.1998 (Annexure-D) issued from the office of the Chief Engineer (Electrical) whereby the mother of the petitioner was informed that there was no scope to provide a job to her son (writ petitioner). The said claim for a job for the writ petitioner was made on the basis of the service rendered by the petitioner's father late Ratan Chakraborty who worked as work-a charge employee of the Public Works Department (PWD). 3. The petitioner's father was employed as a work-charge employee under the PWD till 1962 whereafter he was taken as Prisoner-of-War (POW) to East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) in the year 1962. On being released from jail, the petitioner approached for his re-engagement in service in the year 1975. But he was not permitted to re-join the service, forcing him to file a writ petition being Civil Rule No.70 of 1983 before this court seeking a direction for his re-engagement. 4. By judgment and order dated 30.4.1993, the said writ petition was disposed of, directing the respondent-authorities to give a fresh appointment to Ratan Chakraborty. But apparently the said appointment was not given and Ratan Chakraborty died on 23.8.1994. 5. Thereafter, the mother of the writ petitioner, Smt. Rama Chakraborty made a representation for a job for her son (writ petitioner), which, however, was declined by the impugned order dated 20.5.1998. 6. It appears from the above facts that the father of petitioner Ratan Chakraborty at the time of his death on 23.8.1994, was not employed in a Government job, although earlier till 1962, he was employed as a work-charge employee under the PWD. Under such circumstances, a job on compassionate basis cannot be rightfully claimed by the petitioner. 7. It must also be noticed that the father of the writ petitioner died on 23.8.1994 about 17 years ago and after 17 years of his death, it would not be proper to disregard the requirements of the provisions of articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, to direct giving of appointment to the petitioner under the Die-in-harness scheme. 8. In view of above, this writ petition is held to be without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.