logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 THC 165 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Tripura
Case No : WP (C) No. 330 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO
Parties : Nabarnita Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Secretary, West Tripura & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Purusuttam Roy Barman, Senior Advocate, Sutapa Deb Barman, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mangal Debbarma, Additional Government Advocate, Sankar Lodh, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 24-03-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Judgment :-

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents seeking a direction to the respondents to provide her compassionate appointment on the death of her husband late Kamal Kanti Paul, a Leading Fireman who died in harness on 04.04.2025.

2. The petitioner had applied for the said job on 06.05.2025.

3. Admittedly, there is a scheme framed by the respondents on 02.03.2019 for compassionate appointment in the event of employees dying in harness; and the petitioner being the wife of the deceased in the instant case, is entitled thereto as per para 3.7 (Support-III Category).

4. It is also not the case of the official respondents that the petitioner is not eligible to hold a government job, as on the date of the death of her husband.

5. It is also not denied that there was any other earning member in the family of the petitioner.

6. The only reason for not giving the job on compassionate basis as per the said scheme to the petitioner is that the fifth respondent, who is said to be the mother-in-law of the petitioner, had declined to give no objection to the petitioner for securing the said job.

7. There is not a word mentioned in the scheme of compassionate appointment referred to above in the substantive provisions dealing with ‘No Objection Certificate’ by other family members, though there is an annexure which gives a format of such ‘No Objection Certificate’.

8. When the scheme itself does not contemplate that production of such a certificate is mandatory, in its substantive part, the annexure cannot be used to deny the claim of the petitioner.

9. More importantly, the fifth respondent, the mother-in-law of petitioner, has now filed a Counter Affidavit in the instant case, stating that she had given a written objection on 31.05.2025 to the fourth respondent only regarding disbursement of financial benefits of her son to the petitioner, but that she has ‘no objection’ in issuing NOC in her favour subject to the petitioner agreeing to look after her.

10. It is thus clear that the fifth respondent has no objection for the petitioner being given the job on compassionate basis under the scheme referred to supra, subject to the petitioner looking after her.

11. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner undertakes to take care of the fifth respondent during her lifetime.

12. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the respondents No.1 to 4 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under the scheme dt.02.03.2019 within 4(four) weeks, and grant her a job on compassionate basis.
 
  CDJLawJournal