Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Smt. Minati Rani Paul(Dey) on 19 September, 2018
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Arindam Lodh
Page - 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.61/2018
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Principal Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Department of Agriculture,
Civil Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
Lichu Bagan, P.S. New Capital Complex, Agartala,
West Tripura.
2. The Director of Agriculture,
Government of Tripura, Agartala, West Tripura.
3. The Executive Engineer (Mechanical),
Government of Tripura, Department of Agriculture,
Datta Tilla, Arundhutinagar, P.O. Arundhutinagar,
P.S. Arundhutinagar, District - West Tripura.
---- Appellant(s).
Versus
Smt. Minati Rani Paul(Dey), wife of Late Samarendra Kumar Dey,
resident of Badharghat, P.O. Arundhutinagar, District - West
Tripura.
---- Respondent(s).
For Appellant(s) : Mr. N Choudhury, Govt. Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : None.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 19/9/2018 We have heard counsel for the appellants on merit.
2. It manifests from the record that though the widow approached this Court with the folded hands that her husband died while in service on 29th March, 2003 and whatever her entitlement on account of death of her husband to which she is legitimately entitled for, at least, be paid to her.
Page - 2 of 4
3. Her claim, in the first instance, was not addressed by the respondents and that compelled her to approach this Court by filing WP(C) No.341/2005 and after waiting for almost 7 years the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order in respect of the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances and the Scheme of compassionate appointment.
4. In compliance of order of the Court dt.27th March, 2012 no action was taken by the Govt. and in fact, was sitting tight over the matter despite her best efforts. Thereafter, she served legal notice of demand for justice through her counsel on 18th February, 2017 and in compliance thereof she was informed vide communication dt.28th February, 2017 apprising her that she was earlier communicated about the decision vide communication dt.9th May, 2012 declining request of compassionate appointment. At the same time, nothing was referred to in respect of the financial assistance which she was entitled for.
5. The later communication dt.18th February, 2017 was again the subject matter of challenge by the poor widow in WP(C) No.528/2017. After the notices in the writ petition came to be served counter-affidavit was filed by respondents and the specific defence of the respondents was that as her husband was serving as a Daily Rated Worker(DRW) at the time of his death, the members of the deceased family are not be entitled for compassionate appointment but a specific averment was made in Page - 3 of 4 para - 7 of the counter-affidavit that the family of the deceased employee is entitled for financial assistance under the Scheme and the respondents are willing to make payment of the same.
6. It reveals from record that at the time of submission being made before the Ld. Single Judge it was pointed out that the family may not be entitled even for any financial assistance and a scheme was placed for perusal which disentitles the family of the deceased in seeking financial assistance and the Ld. Single Judge proceeded on the premise that what being referred to by respondents in Para -7 of their counter-affidavit, at least, be considered to be an undertaking on their behalf to extend financial assistance to the widow of the deceased employee who left behind the widow in distress under the Die-in-Harness Scheme.
7. After the death of her husband on 29th March, 2003 she was contesting for the claims regarding her entitlement for almost 13 years and in totality of the matter, Ld. Single Judge considered it appropriate that what being referred to by respondents-State in para - 7 of their counter-affidavit be considered to be an undertaking and the benefit of financial assistance be extended to the widow in furtherance thereof.
8. Counsel for the appellants-State tries to persuade this Court that the family of the deceased was not entitled even for any financial assistance under the relevant Die-in-Harness Scheme.
Page - 4 of 4
9. We are not going to open the issue any further after the statement was made by respondents in WP(C)No.528/2017 itself (appellants herein) in their counter-affidavit and Para-7 in particular which reads 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."
10. There appears no reason for the respondents to disown its own statement and at least, can be treated as an undertaking in a special case where the widow is contesting for her claims legitimately for almost 13 years. In the given circumstances, at least, taking social responsibility the State extended sanction of financial assistance to the widow of deceased employee and this what prevailed to the Ld. Single Judge as well to extend the financial benefit/assistance to the widow of the deceased.
9. After we have heard counsel for the appellants we find no error in the order of Ld. Single Judge which calls for our interference. However, it is made clear that what being observed by Ld. Single Judge in the peculiar facts and circumstances may not be cited as a precedence.
10. Consequently, the writ appeal is devoid of merit and, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
(ARINDAM LODH), J (AJAY RASTOGI), CJ Certificate:- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order. Sukhendu