Tripura High Court
Manju Roy (Ghosh) vs The State Of Tripura And 3 Ors on 17 November, 2021
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.P.(C) No.791 of 2021
Manju Roy (Ghosh)
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and 3 Ors.
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Dey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Saha, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Order
17/11/2021
Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in presence of Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on instruction.
02. The grievance of the petitioner as enumerated in this writ petition is that the petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme on 22.03.2021 after demise of her husband namely Babul Ghosh who had been working as Gram Rojgar Sevak for implementation of MGNREGA works on consolidated pay of Rs.5600 per month. The first engagement letter dated 24.01.2011 [Annexure-1 to the writ petition] demonstrates that the appointment was initially for two years. Page 2 of 3
03. After death of the said employee, the petitioner applied for the appointment under the Scheme for compassionate appointment by the said application dated 22.03.2021 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition].It is apparent from the said petition that the said employee is survived not only by the petitioner, but also by his two minor daughters. It has been categorically asserted in this petition the family of the said employee does not have any other means of earning.
04. Mr. Dey, learned counsel has submitted further that after filing of the application for compassionate appointment even though seven months have elapsed, the respondents have not taken any decision on the said application for compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner, she is covered by the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment/Benefit for the Government Employees of Tripura as published by the Notification under No.F.1(1)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 02.03.2019.
05. Mr. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that direction may be issued on the respondents for disposal of the application for compassionate appointment on due inquiry on all the relevant aspects including whether the petitioner is fit to be considered under the Die-in- Harness Scheme for compassionate appointment or not. Page 3 of 3
06. Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:
The respondents shall make necessary inquiries relevant for disposal of the application dated 22.03.2021 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] and communicate their decision within a period of one month when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order. It is made absolutely clear that this court has not made any observation on the merit whether the petitioner is eligible to be considered or not under the scheme for compassionate appointment.
In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE Moumita