UTPAL DEBNATH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-respondents.

(2.) By means of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner No.1 has prayed for compassionate appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme due to the death of his father on 31.12.2011. The petitioner has stated in his writ petition that he is entitled to be appointed under the Die-in-harness Scheme framed by the Government. It is found in course of hearing of this petition that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was aged about 33 years. When he filed the writ petition, in the affidavit his age was indicated as 39 years as on 25.10.2017.

(3.) Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were totally dependent on the income of their deceased father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the communication dated 24.09.2015 wherein the prayer of the petitioner No.1 for appointment under Die-in-harness Scheme was rejected by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had submitted representation after 3(three) years of the death of his father. However, Mr. Pal has tried to persuade this Court to take notice of the communication dated 01.03.2012 i.e. the representation for appointment on compassionate ground under Die-in-harness Scheme, wherefrom it is found that it was received by the official respondents on 02.03.2012. So according to him, it was filed within time and the contention of the respondents for rejecting the said representation vide Memorandum dated 24.09.2015, issued by the Director of School Education is baseless and suffers from non-application of mind and therefore, is liable to be set aside. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has further submitted that the official respondents in their counter affidavit have made up a third case. He has submitted that one of his brothers was serving under Tripura State Riffles. But, he resides in a separate homestead, as such, the case of the petitioners is well covered by Memorandum dated 24.09.2011 as adopted by the Government of Tripura and this Memorandum is a part and parcel of the Die-in-harness Scheme of the Government. In the said Memorandum the expression 'family' is defined at para 2 which reads thus: