PRIYABALA BISWAS Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) To what extent the benefit of a die-in- harness scheme can be enforced by the court is the solitary question, this court is called upon to decide in the present writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. D.Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. U. B. Saha, learned senior government Advocate, assisted by Mr. D. C. Nath, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The fact not in dispute is that, one Anil Chandra Biswas while in service in the Animal Resources Development De- partment of the State Government died on 19.7.1989. He was survived by his wife, the petitioner No. 1, his son, the petitioner No. 2 and five more children. The two petitioners have claimed that at the time of death of Anil Chandra Biswas, a die-in- harness scheme for providing employment of one eligible member of the family of the deceased as formulated by the State Government was in force. As all her children including the second petitioner were minor, the first petitioner, being wife of the deceased and eligible for a Group-D post, submitted application to the Director of the said Department for a suitable job. On 16.1.1990, the first petitioner was asked to submit certain documents, which were accordingly done in the first week of February, 1990. Thereafter, her long wait and repeated representations could show no light at the end of the tunnel of her misery. Disappointment and dejection resulting from poverty with a burden of six children made her sick. On 20.7.1996 she made another representation to the said authority to provide a suitable job to her son, the second petitioner herein, who became major by the time. But, her plight had no end, as her second prayer was also given no sympathetic consideration. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to provide a suitable job to the second petitioner.