Case Excerpt
Here, the Respondent was the original Petitioner. This is an appeal filed by the State Government challenging the judgment dated 03-09-2019. The said judgment explains the delay in issuing certificates and ignorance towards the Petitioner on not informing about the Die-in-harness scheme.
Facts of the case
Petitioner’s father was working at Group-D position under Director of Secondary Education. Government of Tripura. On 10-09-2012, the Petitioner’s father died. Following the same, his son applied for the death certificate. After getting it, he applied for a survival certificate which was issued on 26-11-2013. Petitioner’s mother pre-deceased on 06-01-2011. The Petitioner is the eldest one from the other 3 sons and 1 daughter. His father was only earning income in the family. Due to that, he applied for the Die-in-harness scheme on 05-03-2014. The application submitted by the petitioner for the Die-in-harness scheme was rejected on 06-02-2018, as the application was made after 1 year 5 months and 25 days from the death of his father. As per the said scheme, the application should be made within 1 year after the death of the deceased person.
Arguments by the Petitioner
Here, the Respondent Sri Rakesh Debbarma was the Petitioner first. He stated that with detailed representation that the death certificate and survival certificate was issued on 6th June 2013 and 26th November 2013 respectively. As the survival certificate was issued after 1 year from the death of his father, so the application could not be made earlier. He also pointed that the notification dated 26th December 2015 of the Die-in-harness scheme. It states that if the family members of the deceased person aren’t aware of the scheme and its formalities, then the same should be informed by the Government Department. But it wasn’t informed to them, so there was a delay in applying. Further, the Petitioner submitted that the Govt. servant died on 10th September 2012 and the notification dated 26th December 2015 of the die-in-harness scheme would not be applicable.
Arguments by Appellants
It was submitted that the Petitioner has disclosed the date of issuance of the survival certificate but he didn’t state that when he made such an application. Further, the government which handles the whole state can’t make such a decision on a technical ground. They also stated that nothing prevented them to gather the data and present it before the Court quickly. So the Petitioner’s argument that there was a delay in the issuance of the survival certificate late is wrong.
Court Analysis
It was observed that the State Government completely failed in informing and giving guidance to the family of the deceased government employee about the Die-in-harness scheme. So the time limit for making the application and the consequences of submitting the documents were delayed. Whenever the department gets any information about the death of any employee, the department should immediately inform the family of the formalities. This case is an example of a lack of understanding and right to information about the scheme & its formalities.
Court’s Decision
This appeal was dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which shall be paid over to the Petitioner by the Appellants within four weeks from the date of judgment.
Case: The State of Tripura/ The Director of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura / The Head Master, Totabari High School. VS. Sri Rakesh Debbarma
Click here to read the full judgment
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
