UTTAM KUMAR PAUL Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. N. Majumder, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D. J. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Petitioner's mother died as a regular employee of the respondent-Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL) having been regularized in service on 2/4/2011 while under the deputation from the Power Department of the Government of Tripura. Several employees were deputed at the time of creation of the Corporation with effect from 1/1/2005. The employees of the Power Department during the period of their deputation under the Corporation were covered under the Die-in-harness Scheme as per memorandum dtd. 1/6/2005 (Annexure-8) issued by the General Administration (P&T) Department, Government of Tripura. However, once the services of such employees like the petitioner's mother was absorbed in the Corporation, they no longer remain employee of the State Government. Therefore, they were taken out of the cover of the Die-in-harness scheme prevalent under the State Government which has been revised from time to time. On this ground, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment upon death of her mother on 9/10/2016 has been regretted by the impugned order dtd. 2/5/2024 passed upon a direction of the writ Court in WP(C) No.480/2023 to decide representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of rejection dtd. 2/5/2024 (Annexure-6) has approached this Court.

(3.) Mr. D.C. Saha, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered by the division bench of this Court in the case of Sri Subash Sarkar versus The State of Tripura and others passed in W.A. No. 70/2018 dtd. 15/7/2019. However, the said case is distinguishable on facts as the concerned employee i.e. the appellant's father died on 18/1/2006 while under deputation under the TSECL from the Power Department, Government of Tripura. During that period employees on deputation with the Corporation were covered under the Die-in-harness scheme of the State Government. However, since the Corporation has not framed any such scheme for compassionate appointment or Die-in-harness scheme, full time employees under regular employment of the Corporation are not governed by any such scheme. Claim for compassionate appointment can be raised only in consonance with such a scheme existing under the organization as it is an exception to the general rule of appointment under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This position in law is well settled.