Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 224 (TRI)

Binisha Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2022-05-06

S.TALAPATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had approached the respondents by filing the application in the format for compassionate appointment, owing to death of her father namely, Chinna Kumar Debbarma who passed away on 23.05.2017. At the time of death, the petitioner's father was working as Group-D employee under the Department of Science, Technology & Environment, Government of Tripura. It has been further stated by the petitioner that his father was below 50 years being aged about 49 years on the day he breathed his last. But her case was not considered and reason for rejection can be had from the communication No.F.4(419)/DSTE/ESTT/2018/6412-13 dated 27.09.2021 [Annexure-13 to the writ petition]. It appears therefrom that the petitioner's case could not be considered for compassionate appointment in view of the final order dated 26.08.2021 delivered in C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner's name was not incorporated in the succession certificate as issued by the said court as she was the daughter of Smt. Biswapati Debbarma. While disposing of the case No. C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018 by the judgment dated 10.03.2022, The Civil Judge had observed that the petitioner in CM(Succ)260 of 2018 is entitled to get the succession certificate for estate left by her deceased husband. It has been further observed in the appeal filed against the final order dated 26.08.2021 delivered in the appeal from the order dated 26.08.2021 that Smt. Biswapati Debbarma is not legally married wife of Chinna Kumar Debbarma, since deceased. She is merely the second wife and her marriage is not legal. Later on, it has been held that all the legal heirs including said Biswapati Debbarma, the second wife are equally entitled to the share of the properties led by Chinna Kumar Debbarma. But in para-9, it has been further narrated that the evidence of DW-3 is also heresay evidence as he heard from the meeting from the others but, those persons are not adduced. DW-2 deposed that after marriage, she went to the house of her husband and found that his first wife deserted him permanently giving him divorce socially. But in para-9, it has been further narrated that the evidence of DW-3 is also heresay evidence as he heard from the meeting from the others but, those persons are not adduced. DW-2 deposed that after marriage, she went to the house of her husband and found that his first wife deserted him permanently giving him divorce socially. Thus, the source of knowledge of DW.2, in respect of desertion and divorce, is quite not clear. Thus, the evidence of DWs are not reliable. 4. Notwithstanding those observations as noted, finally, it has been held that it cannot be stated that the respondent No.1 was divorced by the deceased. In view of the above finding returned by the appellate court, the appellant No.2 Smt. Biswapati Debbarma has been declared as not legally married, she is merely the second wife and her marriage is not legal. But thereafter in para-19 of the said judgment dated 10.03.2022, it has been observed that it is found that the marriage of the appellant No.2 is not legal and the appellant No.2 is not entitled to get any service benefit as of right, but considering the humanitarian ground, service benefits can be made available to the appellant No.2 inasmuch as during his life time, the deceased employee treated her as his wife and, both the wives stayed together. 5. This court finds it very difficult to find a legal balance in those findings. Further, it has been stated by Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel that the said decision has not been challenged by anyone. Thus, the observation of the appellate court, all the respondents being wife, sons and daughters and the appellant No.1(the petitioner herein) being the daughter and the appellant No.2 being the second wife are equally entitled to get the benefit of service as mentioned and described. 6. By the communication dated 27.09.2021 [Annexure-13 to the writ petition] it has been apprised that the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment in view of the final order dated 26.08.2020 delivered in C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018. The said embargo has been removed by the final order passed by the appellate court dated 10.03.2020 [Annexure-15 to the writ petition to the rejoinder]. The said embargo has been removed by the final order passed by the appellate court dated 10.03.2020 [Annexure-15 to the writ petition to the rejoinder]. Having regard to the said order dated 10.03.2020, the respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner afresh and take a decision on appointing the petitioner under the Die-in-harness Scheme within a period of 3(three) months from today. The outcome of the said exercise shall be communicated to the petitioner without delay. Having observed thus, this petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.