Tripura High Court
The Tripura State Electricity ... vs Smti. Madhabi Debnath (Acharjee) on 20 June, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 TRI 236
Bench: Ajay Rastogi, Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA 81 OF 2016
1. The Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd,
Represented by the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
2. The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
3. The Deputy General Manager,
Transmission Division,
Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
79 Tilla, P.S. New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura.
4. The Deputy General Manager (Corporate),
Corporate Office, Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd.,
Bidyut Bhavan, Banamalipur, P.S. East Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
----Appellants(s)
Versus
1. Smti. Madhabi Debnath (Acharjee),
Wife of Late Ganesh Ch. Debnath,
2. Smti. Pousali Debnath,
D/o Late Ganesh Ch. Debnath,
3. Sri Rajesh Debnath,
S/o Late Ganesh Ch. Debnath.
All are residents of Ramnagar Road No.8,
P.S. West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
----Respondent(s)
4. The State of Tripura, Represented by the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, Capital Complex, Agartala-799006, District-West Tripura.
5. The Secretary, Department of Power, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, Capital Complex, Agartala-799006, District-West Tripura.
----Proforma-respondent (s) Page 2 of 6 For Appellant(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Advocate.
Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.C.Nath, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH Order 20/06/2018 The instant intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dt. 12.04.2016.
2. At the outset, it may be noticed that the widow has approached with folded hands that if her unmarried daughter is not eligible for any good reasons seeking compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness scheme, in alternate she may be considered being a widow of the deceased employee who died while in service on 27.07.2006 for compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness scheme in vogue at the time of death of her husband.
3. It is not disputed that her husband late Ganesh Chandra Debnath initially joined service in the Power Department but later on, he was transferred to Tripura State Electricity Corporation Ltd. where he was finally absorbed and was in service of the Corporation at the time of his death on 27th July, 2006. It is also not disputed that Die-in- harness scheme introduced by the State Govt. has been adopted by the Corporation extending compassionate appointment to the employees of the Corporation who died while in service. At the same time, it is also not the case of the appellants that the widow is not eligible in seeking compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme.
4. The widow along with her unmarried daughter and son preferred joint petition with a prayer to consider for compassionate Page 3 of 6 appointment on account of death of her husband who died while in service on 27th July, 2006 leaving behind the dependents in destitute.
5. The Learned Single Judge considered the matter and finally arrived to a conclusion that although the prayer initially made by the petitioner being a mother to provide compassionate appointment to either of the children obviously as there well wisher has not prayed compassionate appointment for herself, but at the same time if either of the dependent children was not eligible in seeking compassionate appointment, the learned Single Judge considered it appropriate that the widow being eligible at least her right of fair consideration in seeking compassionate appointment should not be curtailed by the respondents-Corporation and finally directed the authorities to consider the case of the widow for compassionate appointment under the Die-in- harness scheme obviously taking note of her qualification and suitability for Group-C/Group-D posts available under the impugned judgment dt.12.04.2016.
6. It is a sorry state of affairs that the Corporation on filing writ appeal against the impugned judgment of Learned Single Judge dt. 12.04.2016 without having any interim order of this Court have not responded to the decision with an excuse that they have preferred appeal along with the application seeking condonation of delay and stay application are not supposed to implement the order awaiting decision of this Court in writ appeal preferred at their instance.
7. The bonafides of the appellants shown to this court as explained by the appellants counsel is highly regretted and it cannot be said to be a bonafide action on their part. Once there was an order of the learned Single Judge dt. 12.04.2016 for passing appropriate order within three months in offering compassionate appointment to the Page 4 of 6 widow there was no reason for the appellant-corporation to sit over the matter and without being any interim order of this court in the writ appeal taking a suo motu decision not to implement the order cannot be appreciated. We could have initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the officers of the Corporation for non implementation of the order impugned dt. 12.04.2016, but we leave it open to consider in other appropriate case.
8. At the same time, we would like to observe that the officers must take appropriate steps in the absence of an interim order being passed in writ appeal preferred they are under obligation to implement in terms of the directions of the learned Single Judge subject to the outcome of the pending appeal and mere filing of an appeal along with the application for stay of the order of the learned Single Judge impugned in the writ appeal will not give an exclusive right to the appellants sitting over the matter. If this thing is being repeated in future, we may take action against the defaulting officers.
9. The bone of contention of the appellants counsel is that the widow although jointly preferred the writ petition but she prayed for compassionate appointment of other dependent children of the deceased employee who died while in service although the widow is eligible in seeking compassionate appointment, but in the absence of any specific prayer being made by the widow in a joint petition preferred along with her minor children it was not open for the learned Single Judge to direct and consider the case of the widow for compassionate appointment under the impugned judgment dt. 12.04.2016 and according to him, it is an apparent error being committed by the learned Single Judge under the judgment impugned which calls for our interference.
Page 5 of 6
10. The submission made by the appellants counsel is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that it was a joint petition filed by the widow along with two minor children as a mother, her priority was to consider her children (daughter/son) if eligible for compassionate appointment, but at the same time it was no longer open for the Corporation to contend that if the minor children could not be considered eligible for compassionate appointment under the existing Die-in-harness scheme, the widow if eligible still not entitled for compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness scheme since not prayed for and it does not suit the appellant in raising such technical objection to non suit the claim of the widow who is indeed eligible to seek compassionate appointment under the Die-in-harness scheme.
11. After we have heard the counsel for the appellant, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the learned Single Judge which may call for our interference.
12. Mere dismissal of the appeal will not be enough in the instant case for the reason that the widow in whose favour order came to be passed by the learned Single Judge on 12.04.2016 has to wait for fruits of order for more than two years and this Court can certainly take note on the ground reality that it is very difficult for a widow to survive along with two children in the present scenario when she has lost the breadwinner leaving behind no financial assistance to brought them with the limited resources available at her command.
13. Taking note thereof and the fact that it is a hyper technical objection raised by the corporation in the appeal to non suit the fair consideration of the widow in seeking compassionate appointment for which we have made our observations in detail in the above Paragraph Page 6 of 6 and thus, we consider it appropriate that the corporation must be held liable with a cost of `25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to be recovered from the officer who took decision in filing appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge and ensure compliance of the order within 30 days failing which the respondents have a liberty to file miscellaneous application for passing further orders.
Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed with cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Certificate:- All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order.
sanjay