Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 18 (TRI)

Minati Rani Paul (Dey) v. State of Tripura

2018-01-11

S.TALAPATRA

body2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. PK Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is the second round of litigation by the petitioner. For the same relief, the petitioner had earlier approached this court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) 341 of 2005 which was disposed of, by the order dated 27.03.2012 on observing as under: "Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the nature of the grievance raised, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to pass a speaking order in respect of the grievance of the petitioner by taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and the schemes for compassionate appointment". 3. The petitioner thereafter raised the demand notice dated 18.02.2017 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) for her appointment under the die-in-harness scheme. In response to the said notice, the Director of Agriculture, Government of Tripura by his communication dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) has categorically apprised that the petitioner was earlier communicated about the decision of the respondents by a letter dated 09.05.2012 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). For purpose of reference, the entire text of the said letter dated 09.05.2012 is extracted hereunder: "To, Smt. Minati Rani Paul (Dey), W/O Lt. Samarendra Kr. Dey, Village-Badharghat, P.O.- A.D. Nagar, District-West Tripura Subject: Regret letter in respect of Govt. employment under die-in-harness Scheme. Madam, As per existing Govt. policy in force, a survivor of a deceased Govt. employee/permanent labourer is eligible to have regular employment in the event of death of that category of employee in service if there is no govt. employee exists in the family but as late Samarendra Kr. Dey was the D.R.W. under Agriculture Department and as such in accordance with the Govt. policy, the appeal dated 2.9.2004 of you for employment is regretted. Yours faithfully Sd/IIIigible DIRECTOR OFAGRICULTURE TRIPURA" By the said decision, the petitioner was clearly communicated that as per the government policy, she cannot get any employment under the die-in-harness scheme. 4. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that the said decision as communicated by the letter dated 09.05.20l2 has emanated incorrect interpretation of the relevant scheme which was circulated by the memorandum under No. F.l(1)-GA/97 dated 11.08.1997 (Annexure A to the reply). 4. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel has submitted that the said decision as communicated by the letter dated 09.05.20l2 has emanated incorrect interpretation of the relevant scheme which was circulated by the memorandum under No. F.l(1)-GA/97 dated 11.08.1997 (Annexure A to the reply). The said memorandum has made provision for assistance in the event of the death of a government employee while in service (die-in-harness scheme) borne in the some categories of the employees and that provides as under: "In continuation of this Department's Memorandum No. F.1(2)-GA/77 dated 13.08.96 in regard to the instructions of the State Government towards regulating the Die-in-harness cases, the Governor is pleased to order that the assistance in the event of death of State Government employees while in service (Die-in-harness case) shall also be extended to the following categories of employees under the State Government: (i) If a Government employee, having family members working as daily rated/contingent labourers/workers, expires while in service, the daily rated/contingent worker/labourer amongst the surviving members of the family or one of them as selected by the family members, if there is more than one, may be given regular employment subject to eligibility. (ii) The Die-in-harness scheme shall be applicable to all permanent labourers who are covered under the Permanent Labourer (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983". Having referred to the clause-(i) of the said memorandum dated 11.08.1997, Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel has strenuously argued that the object is to give compassionate appointment and as such there cannot be blanket exclusion of the survivors. There should be some accommodation in the scheme. The interpretation that has been given by the respondents has caused blanket exclusion as there is no daily rated/contingent/labourer amongst the surviving family members of the deceased employee. If this interpretation is accepted by this court that would frustrate the very object of extending the benefits of the die-in-harness scheme for those categories of employee to which the husband of the petitioner belonged. 5. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there cannot be any other interpretation except what has been acted upon by the respondents and as such this writ petition is without any substance and be immediately dismissed. Mr. 5. Mr. S. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there cannot be any other interpretation except what has been acted upon by the respondents and as such this writ petition is without any substance and be immediately dismissed. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has further submitted that this writ petition suffers from laches inasmuch as the deceased employee died on 29.03.2003, but the petitioner has filed their prayer for compassionate appointment after 13 years and after 4 years from the date of communicating the refusal by the respondent no.2. Hence, without considering the merit, this writ petition should be dismissed at the threshold following the doctrine of laches. 6. The relevant facts which are required to be taken into notice are that one Samarendra Kumar Dey, the husband of the petitioner was working as a daily rated worker and he suddenly died on 19.03.2003, being afflicted cancer, leaving behind the petitioner and her two minor son and daughter. There is none in the family and as such the family of the deceased employee has been reeling under serious hardship without any financial security. As a result on 06.06.2003 the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment commensurate to her qualification on compassionate ground under the die-in-harness scheme. According to the petitioner, she is entitled to such benefit under memorandum dated 11.08.1997 (Annexure A to the reply), but the respondents, particularly the respondent no. 2, did not act upon the said memorandum and did not exercise required consideration over her prayer. She was forced to file a writ petition before this court, as stated and the writ petition was disposed of with the direction as extracted above. 7. Since, the doctrine of laches may not be invoked in the present circumstances when the court has directed to pass a reasoned order and the process had been continuing and the last communication was made in the exercise on 28.02.2017, even though the decision was communicated to the petitioner on 09.05.2012. While scrutinizing the records, this court has come across the following averments made by the respondents in paragraph 7, which is as under: "However, the family of the deceased employee is entitled for financial assistance, as per Scheme, and the answering Respondents are ready to make payment of the same”. 8. While scrutinizing the records, this court has come across the following averments made by the respondents in paragraph 7, which is as under: "However, the family of the deceased employee is entitled for financial assistance, as per Scheme, and the answering Respondents are ready to make payment of the same”. 8. The said averment has been made in the reply but no reference has been made to the scheme which may be relevant for extending such financial assistance. This court, however, is of the view that, that can be treated as the undertaking by the respondents before this court and hence the respondents are directed to extend the financial assistance under the scheme meaning under the die-in-harness scheme, in lieu of employment, no other scheme can be applied in the present circumstances. That apart, the respondents are directed to consider the appointment of the petitioner as DRW, so that the family can sail over the financial crisis. Such exercise shall be made as the compassionate measure by the benevolent government. For this, the court is not inclined to stipulate any time frame. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the respondent no.2 immediately so that appropriate action may be taken. However, the financial assistance as has been undertaken by the respondents shall be made within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receiving a copy of this order. 9. Having observed thus, this writ petition stands partly allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Copy of this order be furnished to learned counsel appearing for the respondents for doing the needful.