Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 382 (GAU)

Bhakta Debbarma v. State of Tripura and Ors.

2012-03-21

I.A.ANSARI

body2012
1. Heard Mr. A. Sengupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Ms. A.S. Lodh, learned Government counsel, appearing for the State respondents. 2. With the help of the present writ petition, made under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, whose father, namely, Rajendra Debbarma, died, on 30.8.1993, has sought for issuance of appropriate writ(s) commanding the respondents to appoint him to a suitable post, in any Government Department, in terms of the Government's scheme meant for providing assistance to the members of the family of those, who are killed in extremists' violence, the scheme being embodied in the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Tripura. 3. The petitioner's case is, in brief, thus: On 30.8.1993, at about 7-00 p.m., while the petitioner's father was listening to radio along with some of his co-villagers, in Chaigharia village, some extremists entered into the said village and hacked the petitioner's father to death. The petitioner was at, the relevant point of time, aged about. 10 years and, on attaining majority, he applied for job under the scheme aforementioned. As the petitioner did not receive any response to his application seeking job, he filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No.554/2012, which was disposed of, on 7.12.2010, with direction to the respondents, particularly, respondent No. 2, namely, District Magistrate and Collector, Tripura, to examine the petitioner's case and take a decision in the, matter. By the order, dated 7.12.2010, the petitioner was also left at liberty to take recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible if the petitioner felt aggrieved by the decision(s) and/or order(s) and/or direction(s) which may be passed by the respondents. Thereafter, respondent 2, namely. District Magistrate and Collector. Tripura, communicated his decision to the petitioner by a letter, dated 7.4.2011, stating to the effect, inter alia, that the petitioner's father was a member of ATTF, which is an extremist group in Tripura, and that the petitioner's father was killed in a group clash and, hence, the petitioner was not entitled to be provided with job under the said Government scheme. The petitioner has, now, put to challenge, through the medium of this writ petition, the decision, contained in the letter, dated 7.4.2011, aforementioned. 4. The petitioner has, now, put to challenge, through the medium of this writ petition, the decision, contained in the letter, dated 7.4.2011, aforementioned. 4. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that the letter, dated 7.1.2011, is based on an enquiry report, which had been submitted by the Superintendent of Police of the district concerned. However, the enquiry report reveals that, according to the Superintendent of Police, who had conducted the enquiry, learnt from the investigation carried out, that the petitioner's father was a member of ATTF group and it was strongly suspected that the motive behind the death of the petitioner's father was the infighting between the extremist groups. Tins enquiry report is clearly not sufficient to declare that the petitioners father was a member of the ATTF group and/or that he was killed in a group clash. 5. What, however, needs to be noted is that the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, aforementioned, which the petitioner relies upon in support of his case, does not advance the case of the petitioner inasmuch as this court, finds inherent limitations, imposed by the scheme, on what petitioner seeks to achieve. For the purpose of better appreciation of the scheme, contained in the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, the relevant portion of the Memorandum aforementioned is reproduced below : "Memorandum Sub: Ex gratia assistance in the event of death due to extremists' violence payable to members of the public. The question of providing ex gratia assistance to the members of the public killed due to extremists violence in Tripura had been active consideration of the State Government for some time. The Governor is hereby pleased, to order that in the event of death of any family member of the public due to extremists' violence, following assistance shall be given : (i) An immediate assistance of Rs. 5,000 for one death in the family and Rs. 10,000 for more than one death, in the family shall be disbursed. (ii) Government job to the spouse or children or parents, as the case may be, in the above given order of preference will be provided. The job shall be provided without any relaxation of rides regarding qualification, age limit, etc. The employment will be provided to only one of the survivors. (iii) If the Government job cannot be provided for want of eligible persons in the family, Rs. The job shall be provided without any relaxation of rides regarding qualification, age limit, etc. The employment will be provided to only one of the survivors. (iii) If the Government job cannot be provided for want of eligible persons in the family, Rs. 50,000 shall be paid, to a family if the person killed is of and above 18 years of age (adult). Rs. 25,000 shall be paid if the person killed, is below 18 years of age (minor). In case of death of more than one adult member in a family, financial assistance shall be limited to Rs. 50,000 only. In case of death of more than one minor member in a family, financial assistance shall be limited to Rs. 25,000 only. In case of death, of one or more adults along with one or more minors in a family, the financial assistance shall be limited to Rs. 50,000 only. (iv) The ex gratia of Rs. 50,000 or Rs. 25,000 as mentioned above, shall be in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the spouse or children or parents, as the case may be, in the above given order of preference. (v) The concerned District Magistrates shall, after an enquiry, on the report of the Superintendent of Police and after full satisfaction that the death is due to extremists' violence, make payment to surviving family members in the order of preference as given in, the preceding paragraphs. Tire amount shall be paid from the non-plan budget of the Revenue Department. 2. This order is issued in supersession of all previous instructions and shall take effect from the 10th April, 1993." 6. When the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, aforementioned is taken into consideration, what attracts the eyes, most prominently, is the fact that the scheme, contained in the aforesaid Memorandum, was brought into force with effect from 10.4.1993, whereas, the petitioner's father was killed on 30.8.1993. Ordinarily, therefore, the petitioner could not have been given the benefit of the scheme contained in the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996. Far more important, however, is the fact that a careful and patient analysis of the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, shows that in the event Government job cannot be provided to the affected family for want of eligible persons in the family, an amount of Rs. Far more important, however, is the fact that a careful and patient analysis of the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, shows that in the event Government job cannot be provided to the affected family for want of eligible persons in the family, an amount of Rs. 50,000 shall be paid to the family if the person killed in extremist violence, was above 18 years of age, and Rs. 25,000 if the person killed was below 18 years of age. 7. The above scheme, thus, clearly demonstrates that in case, in a family, there is no person eligible for being provided with any Government job, it is the monetary compensation of Rs. 50,000, which would be paid to the affected family members if the person killed was an adult. 8. In the case at, hand, the petitioner was, admittedly a minor at the time, when his father way killed by the extremists. Being a minor, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for any Government job. In fact, none of the petitioner's family members applied for any job. It is also not the petitioner's case that though there was a person eligible for being provided with Government job, the family had not been provided with a Government job. 9. The scheme, in question, clearly indicates that if there is no person eligible in the family of the deceased to be provided with Government job, then, the family would receive the monetary compensation of Rs. 50,000 if the deceased was an adult, and Rs. 15,000 if the deceased was a minor, (i.e., below 18 years of age). As the petitioner was, admittedly, a minor, he was not eligible to be provided with any Government job and, in such circumstances, the petitioner's family was entitled to receive compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000, because his father was adult, when was killed by the extremists. 10. The impression, that a person is not eligible for being provided with Government job if the person is a minor at the time, when a member of his family is killed in extremist violence, is apparent from the fact that Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, aforementioned makes it clear that job shall be provided without relaxation of the rules as so far as qualification, age limit, etc,, are concerned and that the employment would be provided to only one of the survivors. Had it been the intention of the scheme, in question, to provide job on attaining adulthood, even to a person, who was a minor at the time of the incident, the Memorandum would not have put restrictions on relaxation with regard to qualification, age limit, etc., under the said scheme. 11. In short, thus, under the, scheme, in question, job is required to be provided to one of the survivors of the family of the deceased without any relaxation of the/' essential conditions of recruitment. As the petitioner was a minor at the time of killing of his father by the extremists, he way, obviously, not eligible for job under the said scheme, at that point of time, as no relaxation in respect, of age was permissible. 12. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this court, does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out any case for issuance of direction to the respondents to provide the petitioner with Government job. The respondents are, however, liable to pay ex gratia compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the petitioner's family as provided under the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996 aforementioned. 13. Though it has been submitted, on behalf of the petitioner, that the quantum of financial assistance, provided under the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, has been substantially enhanced by a subsequent Memorandum, dated 01.01.2006, issued in this regard and that the compensation of Rs. 50,000 has been enhanced to Rs. 1.25 lakh, it needs to be noted that the Memorandum, dated 1.1.2000, aforementioned, enhancing the amount of financial assistance, has been brought into force with effect from 1.1.1999 and, as the petitioner's father was killed on 30.8.1993, the petitioner's family is, obviously, not covered by the subsequent Memorandum, dated 1.1.2000, aforementioned. Hence, the petitioner cannot, in the considered view of this court, claim benefit of the enhanced rate of compensation provided under the subsequent Memorandum, dated 1.1.2000, aforementioned. 14. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, it is hereby directed that the respondents particularly, respondent No. 2, namely, District Magistrate and Collector. West Tripura District, Agartala, shall pay, within a period of three months from today, a sum of Rs. 50.000 to the family of the petitioner in terms of the scheme, contained in the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, aforementioned. 15. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. West Tripura District, Agartala, shall pay, within a period of three months from today, a sum of Rs. 50.000 to the family of the petitioner in terms of the scheme, contained in the Memorandum, dated 19.2.1996, aforementioned. 15. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. 16. No order as to costs. _____________