BINISHA DEBBARMA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Sharma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

(2.) Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had approached the respondents by filing the application in the format for compassionate appointment, owing to death of her father namely, Chinna Kumar Debbarma who passed away on 23/5/2017. At the time of death, the petitioner's father was working as Group-D employee under the Department of Science, Technology and Environment, Government of Tripura. It has been further stated by the petitioner that his father was below 50 years being aged about 49 years on the day he breathed his last. But her case was not considered and reason for rejection can be had from the communication No.F.4419/DSTE/ESTT/2018/6412-13 dtd. 27/9/2021 Annexure-13 to the writ petition. It appears therefrom that the petitioner's case could not be considered for compassionate appointment in view of the final order dtd. 26/8/2021 delivered in C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala.

(3.) There is no dispute that the petitioner's name was not incorporated in the succession certificate as issued by the said court as she was the daughter of Smt. Biswapati Debbarma. While disposing of the case No. C.M(Succ) 26 of 2018 by the judgment dtd. 10/3/2022, The Civil Judge had observed that the petitioner in CM(Succ)260 of 2018 is entitled to get the succession certificate for estate left by her deceased husband. It has been further observed in the appeal filed against the final order dtd. 26/8/2021 delivered in the appeal from the order dtd. 26/8/2021 that Smt. Biswapati Debbarma is not legally married wife of Chinna Kumar Debbarma, since deceased. She is merely the second wife and her marriage is not legal. Later on, it has been held that all the legal heirs including said Biswapati Debbarma, the second wife are equally entitled to the share of the properties led by Chinna Kumar Debbarma. But in para-9, it has been further narrated that the evidence of DW-3 is also heresay evidence as he heard from the meeting from the others but, those persons are not adduced. DW-2 deposed that after marriage, she went to the house of her husband and found that his first wife deserted him permanently giving him divorce socially. Thus, the source of knowledge of DW.2, in respect of desertion and divorce, is quite not clear. Thus, the evidence of DWs are not reliable.