Tripura High Court
Smti. Parimala Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura on 20 November, 2017
Author: S. Talapatra
Bench: S. Talapatra
THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)48 of 2017
Smti. Parimala Debbarma,
wife of late Rammangal Debbarma,
resident of Bahadur Sardar Para,
P.O. Nunachara, P.S. Mungiakami,
Teliamura, Khowai District
............Petitioner
- Vs -
1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Secretary, Department of Animal
Resources Development, Government of Tripura, New
Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex,
District : West Tripura, PIN : 799006
2. Director, Animal Resources Development,
Pandit Nehru Complex, Gurkhabasti, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S.
New Capital Complex, District : West Tripura
............Respondents
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA For the petitioner : Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, Sr. Advocate Mr. D. Kar, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Advocate Date of hearing : 06.07.2017 Date of delivery of : 20.11.2017 Judgment and Order Whether fit for reporting : NO Judgment and Order By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court for quashing the letter No. F.2(IV-441)ARDD/ESTT/02 dated 10.06.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme for death of her Page 1 of 7 WP(C) 48 of 2017 husband namely Rammangal Debbarma who was serving as Group-D employee under the Animal Resources Development Department. Rammangal Debbarma expired on 13.09.2012 in harness leaving behind his first wife, two sons, a minor daughter and the petitioner as a second wife, as reflected in the survival certificate dated 30.05.2013 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, West Tripura [Annexure-2 to the writ petition].This facts are not in dispute by the respondents. According to the petitioner, she has read upto Class-VI and thus, she is eligible for appointment to a Group-D post under the Government of Tripura.
2. After demise of her husband, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme on 16.08.2013 on obtaining the no-objection from the other legal heirs of the deceased employee including his first wife namely Rabilaxmi Debbarma. The petitioner has submitted all necessary documents to show her entitlement. But the respondents did not take any decision favouring the petitioner. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 by issuing the letter dated 10.06.2016 [Annexure 4 to the writ petition] rejected her prayer. The text of the said letter is extracted hereunder :
Page 2 of 7
WP(C) 48 of 2017 GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DIRECTORATE OF ANIMAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT P.N. COMPLEX : AGARTALA NO.F.2(IV-441)ARDD/ESTT/02 Dated, Agartala the 10th of June, 2016 To Smt. Parimala Debbarma, W/O. Lt. Rammangal Debbarma, Vill.- Bahadur Sardar Para, P.O. Nuna Chara, P.S.- Mungiakami, Teliamura, Khowai District Subject :- Regarding employment under Die-in-harness case.
Madam, Your prayer for employment under Die-in-harness case is regretted by the Govt. as it is not covered by the scheme framed by the State Govt.
Yours faithfully, Not illegible (Dr. M. Sarkar) Director Animal Resources Development The said decision of the respondents is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. Kar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the family of the deceased belongs to the scheduled tribe and is guided by Old Hindu Law and their succession and marriage are not governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Both the wives of the deceased have legitimate rights of succession and consequently, there cannot be any reason to deny the appointment to the petitioner under Die-in-harness Scheme being the second wife of the deceased employee.
4. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the family left by the deceased employee has been Page 3 of 7 WP(C) 48 of 2017 reeling under serious financial constraints. For alleviation of such distress in the family of the deceased employees who died in the harness, the Die-in-harness Scheme has been framed. The action of the respondents defies the said object of the scheme. Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has further submitted that there is no valid reason to deny the appointment to the petitioner under the Die-in-harness Scheme. But the respondents took a firm stand that even though the foundational facts as laid by the petitioner are not as such disputed but since Rammangal Debbarma has contracted the second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage with Rabilaxmi Debbarma. As such, the said marriage was in violation of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988.
Even the petitioner has admitted her status as the second wife of the deceased employee.
5. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been asserted as under:
" The concerned Department observed, that, the claim of the Petitioner is not covered under the Definition of the "family" notified vide No. F.1(2)- GA(P&T)/15, dated 26.12.2015, issued by the Addl. Secretary, GA (P&T) Dept., whereby and whereunder in suppression of all earlier instructions, the die-in-harness Schemes has been revised.
As per revised Scheme, the Second wife has given no status for employment under die-in-harness. As per the said notification, dated, 26.12.2015, the claim of the 2nd wife i.e., the Petitioner herein, is not covered under the Die-in-Harness Scheme framed by the State Govt. Therefore, though the application of the Petitioner has been considered by the answering Respondents sympathetically, but as the case of the Petitioner is not covered under the Scheme, so, she was not provided job under the Scheme.
Copy of the Notification No. F.1(2)- GA(P&T)/15, dated 26.12.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R/1.Page 4 of 7
WP(C) 48 of 2017 The Petitioner is a scheduled tribe member, belonging to the Tripuri Community, whose customary law also does not permit second marriage during the subsistence of valid marriage, without divorce, either taken customarily or through legal forum. Second wife has given no status during subsistence of valid marriage."
6. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has further submitted that even by the definition provided under the Die-in-harness Scheme, a compilation for which has been published under the notification No. F.1(2)-GA(P&T)/15 dated 26.12.2015, the petitioner cannot be treated as the member of the dependent family as left by the deceased employee. The Die-in-harness Scheme is applicable only to the dependent family members of the deceased employee who died while in service. The dependent family members are defined as under :
"Dependent family member shall cover the following -
(i) wife or husband, as the case may be;
(ii) legitimate children,
(iii) legitimate step Children,
(iv) adopted Children.
(v) dependent daughter-in-law;
(vi) dependent parents;
(vii) dependent unmarried brother(s)
(viii) dependent unmarried sister(s)and
(ix) dependent widowed daughter(s) Provided that a married son or daughter-in-law or widowed daughter, if he/she lives/used to live separately from other members of the family on or before the death of the Government employee shall not be considered as family member and at the same time he/she shall not be treated as earning member of the family of the government employee for the purpose of providing benefits under the Scheme only."
7. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel has clearly submitted that no exception has been curved out to include the Page 5 of 7 WP(C) 48 of 2017 second wife as such any exception therefrom would have been offending the fundamentals of law including the provisions of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. It has been further urged by the respondents that, that aspect of the matter was considered with required resilience by the state, as would be evident from the various inter-departmental notes [Annexure R/5 to the reply]. The law department has given a clear opinion as follows :
"Even assuming that deceased employee was entered to the 2nd marriage, the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as heritable right under personal law by the 2nd wife inasmuch as the state Govt. scheme does not recognize the same."
Even the claim of the petitioner to succeed the properties of the deceased employee by way of a family settlement has been clearly rejected by the civil court by its order dated 26.02.2015 delivered in Misc. (Succ) 57 of 2013 [Annexure R/10].
8. Having appreciated the rival submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the solitary question that emerges for decision of the court is that whether in the circumstances the petitioner admittedly being the second wife of the deceased employee can get any appointment under the Die- in-harness Scheme. For the following reasons this court is of the opinion that she cannot get such appointment :
1. There is no legal evidence that bigamy is recognized by the community from which the deceased employee hailed. Moreover the respondents in their reply has categorically denied existence of such system.Page 6 of 7
WP(C) 48 of 2017
2. The die in harness scheme has only recognized "wife" not any of its variations including the second wife. Such inclusion, if assumed, would have offended the provisions of Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988. By way of interpretation no court can come to an inference which would stand contrary to the municipal law.
Even the civil court has clearly denied to recognize the petitioner's status to inherit.
9. Having observed thus, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, before parting with the records, the respondents are directed that if, except the petitioner, none is there in the family of the deceased employee to provide compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness Scheme, the financial assistance shall be given to the wife of the deceased employee namely Rabi Laxmi Debbarma. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the day when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order.
In the result, the petition is disposed of, in terms of the above.
A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for transmission to the respondents forthwith.
There shall be no as to costs.
JUDGE Sabyasachi. B Page 7 of 7 WP(C) 48 of 2017