Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 34 (TRI)

Gita Dhar (Sarkar) v. State of Tripura

2014-01-28

S.TALAPATRA

body2014
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J.:- Heard Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D.C. Nath, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The controversy projected in the writ petition falls in a short compus. The petitioner is the widow of late Amal Sarkar, who died while serving as the Rifleman in the First Battalion of the T.S.R. on 09.03.1998 leaving behind the petitioner. The petitioner on obtaining the survival certificate (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) applied for job under the die-in-harness scheme commensurate to her qualification in terms of the Memorandum No. D/92(2) dated 19.11.1997 and No. F.(1)-GA/92 dated 11.08.1997 issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. From the communication dated 24.08.2009, part of Annexure-6-A series, it would transpire that: It is also to state that Smt. Gita Dhar (Sarkar) has submitted application seeking job under die-in-harness scheme on 31.08.1998 within prescribed period (i.e. within 1(one) year) from the date of death of her husband but the then dealing hand and the then Commandant did not process her case for providing job in time. Her application dated 31.08.1998, 07.07.1999 and 21.05.1999 are also enclosed herewith for taking further necessary action. The said communication was addressed to the Assistant Inspector General of Police (Ops), Government of Tripura Agartala. 3. It appears further from the communication dated 08.03.2010 written by the Superintendent of Police, South Tripura District that there was inordinate delay in processing the case of the petitioner under die-in-harness scheme. The said letter was addressed to the Inspector General of Police (TSR & OPS), Government of Tripura, Agartala. There cannot be any dispute that the application for the job under the die-in-harness scheme was filed by the petitioner on 31.08.1998 and the said application was made within one year after the death of the husband of the petitioner. 4. In terms of the provisions made in the memorandum dated 20.02.1999 (Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit), the claim for appointment under the die-in-harness scheme should invariably be filed within one year from the death of the Government servant. Therefore, the said application was well within the limitation as prescribed by the said memorandum dated 20.02.1999 as well as by the memorandum dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure-R/2 to the counter affidavit). 5. Be that as it may, the respondent No. 4 and other respondents did not consider the application in that perspective. Therefore, the said application was well within the limitation as prescribed by the said memorandum dated 20.02.1999 as well as by the memorandum dated 08.01.1992 (Annexure-R/2 to the counter affidavit). 5. Be that as it may, the respondent No. 4 and other respondents did not consider the application in that perspective. Without proper apperception of the fact and circumstances, they had taken a decision, embodied in the communication dated 10.05.2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) that the petitioner was not eligible to get a job as per the provisions of the die-in-harness scheme. The petitioner was offered alternatively to accept the financial assistance of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand), but the petitioner had refused to accept such financial assistance. 6. Being aggrieved by the said decision embodied in the communication dated 10.05.2001 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the petitioner has approached this Court for getting a job under the die-in-harness Scheme which was denied to her by non-consideration of the relevant fact. 7. Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the legitimate claim of the petitioner has been denied by the respondents arbitrarily and as such, the respondents be directed to provide a job to the petitioner commensurate to her qualification under the die-in-harness scheme. 8. From the other side, Mr. D.C. Nath, learned State counsel appearing for the respondents did not contest the said position of fact as unfolded from the records. He has fairly submitted that for a mistake committed by the dealing hand, the application for job under die-in-harness scheme was not processed in time and such omission has resulted in the impugned decision. 9. On appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties as well as on scrutinizing the records made available to this Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner had filed the application seeking job under the die-in-harness scheme after the death of her husband namely, Amal Sarkar on 09.03.1998. The said application was made on 31.08.1998. As such, the ground assigned for refusing the job to the petitioner under die-in-harness scheme cannot be sustained. As corollary thereto, the impugned decision dated 10.05.2001 embodied in the Annexure-5 to the writ petition is set aside and quashed. 10. The said application was made on 31.08.1998. As such, the ground assigned for refusing the job to the petitioner under die-in-harness scheme cannot be sustained. As corollary thereto, the impugned decision dated 10.05.2001 embodied in the Annexure-5 to the writ petition is set aside and quashed. 10. The respondents, particularly the respondent No. 4 is directed to give the petitioner a job under the die-in-harness scheme within a period of 3 (three) months from today without fail. It is made clear that the petitioner's claim for appointment cannot be denied on any other reasons whatsoever as in the counter affidavit, the respondents have shown no other reason for denying her job under the die-in-harness scheme. Accordingly, this petition stands allowed and disposed of, to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.