Sri Mongfa Mog v. The Chairman. Tripura Gramin Bank and 2 Ors

Order

24/04/2023

Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank.

¶2The case of the petitioner is that his father was a regular employee under the respondents-Bank and while he was in service he died in-harness. After the death of his father, he submitted application for compassionate appointment. The competent authorities of the respondents-Tripura Gramin Bank had engaged him as Daily Rated Worker w.e.f. 23.11.2010, as per the record of the Bank which was placed by Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank. The said fact is also stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents-Bank.

¶3The petitioner submitted repeated representations to the competent authorities to regularize his service, but, that was not considered by the Bank. In the year 2021, the petitioner came to know that the Tripura Gramin Bank had introduced a scheme for compassionate appointment w.e.f. 28.02.2019. According to the petitioner, he is covered by that scheme and his service as Daily Rated Worker may be regularized under the said scheme for compassionate appointment.

¶4Mr. Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been passing his days with acute hardship for the reason that the meager amount he has been receiving at present is impossible for him to maintain his family. Mr. Pal, learned counsel has pressed into service a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malaya Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa & Ors. arising out of Civil Appeal No.4103 of 2022, which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated May 20,2022.

¶5Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has resisted the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the fact that when the petitioner was engaged as Daily Rated Worker on compassionate ground there was no scheme for compassionate appointment at all. However, the competent authorities of the Bank had considered his case

sympathetically and engaged him as Daily Rated Worker to overcome his hardship he was facing due to untimely death of his father.

¶6Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has further submitted that all service benefits his deceased father was entitled to had been provided to him. Vehemently opposing the prayer of the petitioner, Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has submitted that if the prayer of the petitioner for regularization of his service is allowed, then, it will amount to opening of floodgate of cases because before the date of introduction of the compassionate appointment scheme there were many employees of the Bank who died during their service period. Furthermore, according to learned counsel for the respondents-Bank, the Tripura Gramin Bank, being a rural bank is running under serious financial constraints.

¶7I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties. Admittedly, in absence of any scheme for compassionate appointment, the respondents-Bank had considered the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and engaged him as Daily Rated Worker taking into account the hardship the petitioner would have to face due to untimely death of his father. However, the respondents-Bank considered it expedient to formulate a scheme for compassionate appointment and for that purpose they introduced the scheme for compassionate appointment to provide a suitable job to a dependent family member of a permanent employee of a Bank who dies in-harness while in service.

¶8Undoubtedly, the appointment of the petitioner as Daily Rated Worker was a compassionate appointment due to the death of his father while he was in service. Since there was no scheme, the petitioner could not be appointed on regular basis. It is also a grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discharging his duties as Daily Rated Worker under the respondents for the last 13(thirteen) years and in the meantime, the scheme for compassionate appointment has been introduced by the

Bank giving its effect from 28.02.2019. It is a social welfare scheme brought into force to provide job in a circumstance when the family of the deceased needs immediate financial assistance.

¶9In view of this, considering the nature of the scheme and his long service period as Daily Rated Worker, I direct the respondents to consider the regularization of the petitioner since before the introduction of the scheme itself the competent authorities of the Bank had realized the hardship of the petitioner and out of sympathy he was provided with a job whatever be the nature of the service.

¶10This Court hopes and trusts that the respondents-Bank shall take up the matter sympathetically. It is made clear that this order will not be a precedent to consider the cases of similar nature.

¶11It is further made clear that in the event of regularization of his service, the petitioner will not be entitled to any arrears or any financial benefits for the period he served as Daily Rated Worker. His regular service, if his case is at all considered, will be counted from the date of the order of regularization, which may be issued by the competent authorities of the Bank. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed in the above terms.

JUDGE Snigdha

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) No.912 of 2021 Sri Mongfa Mog S/O Late Ruiwoo Mog Resident of Vill-Barbil, Mongfru Mog Para P.O. Silachari, P.S. Silachari District-South Tripura Pin-799104 ….Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The Chairman. Tripura Gramin Bank Head Office-Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura. 2. The General Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank Head Office-Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura. 3. The Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Silachari Branch, P.O. Silachari P.S. Silachari, District-Gomati, Tripura ….Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Pal, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.Roy Barman, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH