LAWS(TRIP)-2019-5-74

JOWEL DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

Decided On May 29, 2019
Jowel Debbarma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TRIPURA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. T.K. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Briefly stated, the grievance of the petitioner is that his father namely Sukhlal Debbarma who was serving as the Forest Guard died on 5/2/2016 in harness. As per the Die-in-Harness Scheme in vogue in the State of Tripura, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment commensurate to his qualification. Such application was submitted on 3/5/2016 to the respondent No.2 through the respondent No.3. The respondent No.2 by a letter dtd. 17/5/2016 asked for some additional documents to process the said application and accordingly, the survival certificate, undertaking duly attested by the Gazetted Officer, Proforma required to be filled up for the said purpose, copy of the PRTC and Employment Registration Certificate attested Gazetted Officer were submitted on 17/5/2016. On 3/10/2016, the petitioner was informed by the respondents that as per the inquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, West Tripura under No.F.1(9)/SDM/JRN/CON/Vol-III/2012/247-48 dtd. 19/9/2016, one of the family members of the deceased employee namely Ujjal Debbarma is employed as he has been serving under the Border Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Hence, the petitioner cannot be considered under Die-in-Harness Scheme. The said communication dtd. 3/10/2016 is submitted with the writ petition being Annexure-5.

(3.) Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitoner has submitted that the elder brother of the petitioner namely Ujjal Debbarma is truly serving in the Border Security Force but he has separated himself from the family of the deceased employee much before the death of the said employee and as such, the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jirania, West Tripura dtd. 12/1/2017 [Annexure-R/4 to the reply filed by the respondents] cannot be accepted. Moreover the said report has its secondary character, not purely based on the physical inquiry.