Tripura High Court
Noting By Officer Or Serial Date Office ... vs The State Of Tripura on 16 November, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
W.P.(C) No.521 of 2017
Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or
Advocate No Proceedings with signature
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
16.11.2017
Heard Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner as well as Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 to 4
and Ms. S. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to provide him appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme for death of his father namely, Kalendra Chakma @ Khalendra Chakma who was a Forester and died in the harness.
There is no dispute that the petitioner filed due application for getting job under die-in-harness scheme but the respondents, particularly the respondent No.2, has refused to provide such appointment, which can be availed from the communication under No.F.10(2)- FIN(G)/2005/Part-1 dated 23.03.2016 [part of Annexure-9 to the writ petition] issued by the Finance Department, Government of Tripura. It has been disclosed by the said communication that the petitioner was the married son of the deceased employee and he was living separately from the family of the deceased employee as on the date of death. It is reflected in the ration card and the register of residents. As per existing rules, he would not be entitled to get the job under die- in-harness scheme. The said decision has been challenged by means of this petition. Mr. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner having referred to the decision of this court in Bharat Milan Jamatia vs. the State of Tripura and others [judgment and order dated 13.08.2015] delivered in W.P.(C) No.161 of 2015 has submitted that mere existence of two ration cards in certain Sujay Page 1 of 4 W.P.(C) No.521 of 2017 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature circumstances cannot be the basis of coming to an inference that the person was not physically living and living separately by setting up his own family unit. Under the rules, two separate ration cards cannot be issued for the same family.
Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4 has submitted that the ground that has been assigned by the said communication dated 23.03.2016 that at the time of death of the deceased employee one of his sons, namely Kala Chakma was in the government employment as the Multi Purpose Worker [MPW]. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has referred to the deletion note as made on the ration card No.1453 [Annexure-H to the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 4] which was initially opened in the name of deceased employee, namely Kalendra Chakma. The said deletion note was recorded on 21.03.2014 when Kalendra Chakma, the father of the petitioner, died on 02.01.2014. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has thus contended that since the deletion note had been recorded on 18.03.2014, it is obvious that said Kala Chakma was in the family of the deceased employee till 21.03.2014. Therefore, there cannot be any appointment under the die-in-harness as one government employee was there in the family. However, Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was also staying away from the family of the deceased employee before his death.
Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court would refer to the inquiry report filed by the SDM, Kanchanpur, North Tripura under No.F.4(13)/SDM/KCP/GL/2014-15/1904 dated 01.04.2015 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition]. In column Sujay Page 2 of 4 W.P.(C) No.521 of 2017 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature No.9 of Part-A of the said report, the following entry has been made:
9 Govt. service holder Sri Kala Chakma, MPW, with family member, if any salary Rs.7600/- pm. but he is with name, designation, separated from ROR & Ration salary etc. Card before the death of his father.
Further it has been provided in the said report under column No.13 of Part-A as under:
13 If applicant is married, Yes the applicant is married and whether he is staying staying with his mother at with the family and Pubangherra, Shibnagar evidence thereof.
Further, under the Part-C of the report, the SDM has provided the following opinion for consideration of the competent authority:
"Considering the family Economic Condition report of the deceased Employee, applicant appears to be eligible for Govt. Job under Die-in-harness scheme."
It appears to this court that so far the aspect of having a government service holder in the family is concerned, the competent authority has relied on the report that Kala Chakma who is working as the MPW had disassociated him from the family of the deceased. In this regard, the contention of Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel cannot be very fundamental inasmuch as the deletion may take place even after physical separation from the family and hence, this court would not give much importance on that aspect of the matter, but would given what has been stated under Part-A of the said report that the petitioner is married and staying with his mother. Again, it is not very clear whether the petitioner had joined his mother after his father's death or not. But it creates doubt inasmuch as the SDM has opined that the petitioner may be given a job under the Die-in-harness Scheme. The petitioner even did not deny that he was having a separate ration card and his name getting deleted from the ration card on 21.03.2014.
Sujay Page 3 of 4 W.P.(C) No.521 of 2017 Noting by Officer or Serial Date Office notes, reports, orders or Advocate No Proceedings with signature Having situated thus, the respondents are directed to carry out a fresh inquiry to ascertain whether the petitioner was physically living with the deceased employee at the time of death of his father or not. For having two separate ration cards the petitioner cannot be deprived of the job. If in the inquiry report it is found that the petitioner was physically living with the family of the deceased employee, the respondents shall consider his case for appointment under Die-in-harness scheme. The entire exercise shall be completed within 6(six) months from today.
In terms of the above observation and directions, this writ petitions stands partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 for doing the needful.
JUDGE Sujay Page 4 of 4