- (1.) BY this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of both the writ appeals, for, both these appeals have arisen out of the judgment and order, dated 12. 12. 2006, passed in WP (C) No. 60/2001.
(2.) FOR the purpose of appreciating the questions, which have arisen for determination in the present appeals, the material facts giving rise to the present appeals are set out as follows : (i) While serving as an Assistant Teacher in Ramthakur Pathsala Primary Section attached to the Boys' Higher Secondary School, Agartala, which is a privately managed Government aided school, Ranjit Kumar Roy breathed his last, on 26. 05. 96, leaving behind Smti Chandana Roy as his widow and Sri Kumarjit Roy as his son. Both the legal representatives of the said deceased submitted an application to the Administrator of the said school seeking, on compassionate ground, appointment for Sri Kumarjit Roy aforementioned. The Administrator of the said school forwarded, vide its communication, dated 11. 03. 97, the said application to the Director of School Education, Government of Tripura. As repeated requests for appointment of Kumarjit Roy aforementioned, under die-in-harness Scheme, failed to yield any favourable result, a writ petition was filed by the said two legal representatives, Smt. Chandana Roy being the petitioner No. 1 and her son, Kumarjit Roy, being the petitioner No. 2, their case being, briefly stated, thus : The benefit of compassionate appointment, under die-in-harness Scheme, was, initially, introduced by the Government of Tripura confining the benefit of the said Scheme to the legal heirs of only those teachers, who were working in Government Schools. By memorandum, dated 13. 08. 96, a comprehensive procedure for providing employment under the die-in-harness scheme was introduced. In the said memorandum, a provision was also made for giving financial assistance of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- if the employment, for reasons mentioned in the said memorandum, was not provided. By yet another memorandum, dated 19. 11. 97, the benefit of the Scheme of die-in-harness was extended to the teaching and non-teaching employees of the privately managed Government aided schools in Tripura. As the benefit of the Scheme covered by memorandum, dated 13. 08. 96, aforementioned, has been extended to teachers of privately managed Government aided schools in Tripura, the Government of Tripura ought to have provided employment to the petitioner No. 2 and as the Government has failed to provide employment to the petitioner No. 2, the petitioners sought for issuance of appropriate Writ (s) commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner No. 2 under the said Scheme. (ii) The respondents resisted the writ petition by contending, inter alia, that the die-in-harness Scheme was, for the first time, introduced, in respect of teachers of privately managed Government aided schools on 19. 11. 1997, but as Ranjit Roy had died on 26. 05. 96, i. e. , before the said Scheme became applicable to the teachers of the privately managed Government aided school, the writ petitioners' case was neither covered under the memorandum, dated 13. 08. 96, nor under the memorandum, dated 19. 11. 97 and, hence, the writ petitioner No. 2 could not be given any employment under the said Scheme. (iii) In the impugned judgment and order, a learned Single Judge of this Court has concluded that the memorandum, dated 19. 11. 97, aforementioned covers the cases of those persons too, who were, otherwise, covered by memorandum, dated 13. 08. 96, and that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner No. 2 was entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of the said Scheme. While, however, granting relief, the learned Single Judge has held that the memorandum, dated 13. 08. 96, aforementioned envisaged providing of financial assistance as an alternative to the employment and that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioners were entitled to only financial assistance of Rs. 50,000/ -. The learned Single Judge accordingly directed the respondents to do the needful. Aggrieved by the directions, so given, and contending, inter alia, that the petitioner No. 2 was entitled to be provided with employment and that the directions for providing financial assistance to the petitioners had been given on misreading of the relevant Schemes in force, the writ petitioners have filed a writ appeal, which has given rise to Writ Appeal No. 23/2007. Contending, inter alia, that the petitioners' case was not covered at all by the Schemes, in question, and that the writ petitioners were not entitled even to financial assistance under the said Schemes, respondents too have preferred an appeal and this appeal has given rise to Writ Appeal No. 60/2001.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the writ petitioners-appellants, and Ms. A. S. Lodh, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State respondents.;