NAYAN PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises in the following background: Petitioners father Late Amalendu Paul was working as a Helper Grade-II with the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Electricals), Gokulnagar when he died on 06.12.2003, still in service. The deceased left behind his widow Smt. Tapati Paul and the present petitioner Nayan Paul who was aged about 4(four) years at the time of the death of his father. The petitioners mother made an application on 07.05.2004 for being appointed on compassionate grounds. It appears that the mother of the petitioner was not qualified for being appointed in the Government job and the Government, therefore, provided one time financial assistance in the form of payment of Rs.50,000 (rupees fifty thousand) to the family. The mother of the petitioner did not accept such assistance. The petitioner crossed the age of 18 years on 14.08.2017. In the meantime he had acquired the educational qualification of H.S. (+2 stage). On 30.06.2018 the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the die-in-harness scheme of the State of Tripura. Since the respondents did not dispose of the application within a reasonable time this petition came to be filed with a prayer to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment of the petitioner under the scheme framed by the Government.

(2.) Initially this petition was placed before the Single Judge of this Court before whom counsel for the petitioner had cited a decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Shri Subham Dey vrs. The State of Tripura and others dated 22.11.2018 in W.A. No.45 of 2014 in which reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds ignoring the question of limitation in making such application. It was a case where the applicant was minor at the time of the death of his father who was a Government servant and had died in harness. The Single Judge had some prima facie doubt about the correctness of the decision of this Court in case of Subham Dey (supra). By passing a detailed order on 19.12.2019 the petition was ordered to be placed before the Division Bench to consider whether the decision in case of Subham Dey (supra) requires reference to Larger Bench.

(3.) In this background, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Subham Dey (supra) is squarely applicable. It was also a case in which the applicant was minor at the time of the death of the Government servant. The Single Judge had rejected his application on the ground that the same was not made within the period of limitation prescribed under the scheme. This decision was reversed by the Division Bench on the ground that the application for appointment was made within one year from attaining majority. He submitted that the die-in-harness scheme of the Government does not debar such application. Alternatively he contended that Section 6 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply in the present case. Since the petitioner was under legal disability in making application on account of his minority, period of limitation for making application would be suitably extended after such disability ceased to exist. Counsel submitted that in none of the decisions of Supreme Court this issue has been examined.