In an important judgment the Division Bench of High Court of Tripura comprising Justice Arindam Lodh and Justice SD Purkayastha has maintained that in accordance with the present rules the state government is not bound to extend die in harness support on compassionate ground to an autonomous body employee as they are not to be deemed as ‘government employees’. With this verdict the Division Bench also set aside the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge the then Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty on January 05 2022. In that judgment the then Chief Justice held that state government should extend job opportunity to one Mitali Biswas on compassionate ground whose husband Prasunjit Kar, an employee of Tripura State Legal Service Authority, died while in service.
After her husband’s death Mitali Biswas ( Kar) wrote to the TSLSA for a job under the government’s die in harness scheme. The TSLSA accordingly sent the matter to the state government for approval. But the Finance Department turned down the application on the pretext that TSLSA employees are not government employees and as such employment under the die in harness scheme which is applicable for the government employees cannot be extended to Mitali Biswas.
The matter then went to the High Court and the then Chief Justice Indrajit Mahanty’s Single Bench gave verdict in her favour. The state government , however, did not find it acceptable and ultimately the issue following a writ appeal from the government came up for hearing at the Division Bench of Justice Arindam Lodh and Justice SD Purkayastha.
In their order the Division Bench made it clear that as per the act and rules TSLSA is an autonomous body and government’s die in harness scheme cannot be extended to its employees.
Their order said : On plain reading of Rule 6 of Rules of 2012, it is crystallized that the State Government has no administrative control or authority in the matter of appointment and method of recruitment of the officers and staffs/employees of the State Legal Services Authority. The State Government only made the rules in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court. … From the constitution of the said authority, it comes to fore that a committee of TSLSA is constituted in terms of the provisions made under Section 6 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. So, TSLSA is a creature of a Statute and is not established by any act or rules of the State Government. Thus, according to us, there should not be any quarrel that it is an autonomous body….. As sequel, the employees of an autonomous body like State Legal Services Authority cannot be said to be government employees/servants under the State Government. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the natural conclusion is that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner cannot be treated at par with the Government servants serving under the State Government.
The Division Bench also observed : Tripura State Legal Services Authority Rules. Clause 32 reads– If any question arises as to the interpretation of these rules, the decision of the Government of Tripura thereon shall be final.
There is no quarrel that the Government has a significant implication in interpretation Clause in a statute or scheme also known as a „finality clause‟. On plain reading of the Interpretation clause, we find that the decision of the State Government in case any question arises as to the interpretation of any of the provision of this Rules, the decision of the State Government is final. But, it is equally true that the decision of the Government is subject to judicial review if such final decision is found to be erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. To say it otherwise, if the interpretation made by the State, violates the Constitution or Fundamental Rights or decision suffers from vice of malice, Court can definitely interpret. However, if the Court finds that the decision of the State Government is consistent to the provisions enumerated in the Act and Rules, then, the courts would have limited power to exercise its power of judicial review. In the instant case, we do not find the decision of the State Government suffers from arbitrariness that TSLSA being an autonomous body, its officers and employees are not entitled to the benefit of the scheme for compassionate appointment.
Since the TSLSA gets money from the government the High Court Judges to dispel the confusion, if any, said : It is settled proposition of law that an organization can fully be funded by the Central or State Government, but, that does not mean that such an organization is a Government department and if an organization is not a Government department, its employees also cannot be treated as government servants.After that the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal preferred by the State government and the restored the Finance Department orders as legally valid in the eye of law.
“ As sequel, the order of the learned Single Judge directing the State authorities (appellants herein) to approve the proposal made by the Member Secretary, TSLSA in favour of the petitioner being not sustainable in law stands set aside”, said the Division Bench.
The appellants was represented in the case by Government Advocate Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, and respondents by R Purkayastha and P Gautam.
