For vs For
2021 Latest Caselaw 661 Tri

                                           Page 1 of 1


                              HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                                    AGARTALA

                                Review Pet. 18 of 2021
       For petitioner(s)            :      Mr. M Debbarma, Addl. GA
       For Respondent(s)            :      None

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

Order 02.07.2021

Mr. M Debbarma, learned Addl. GA has appeared for the review petitioners and submitted that the CAPF personnel are not entitled to the double pensions and as such, the direction of this court falls within the category of error apparent.

This court is not in agreement with such submission, inasmuch as after due discussion, it has been observed that the petitioner, who was an Ex-BSF personnel, is entitled to double pension.

In para 13, the advisory from the Finance Department has been extracted. That apart, in the reply filed by the respondent-applicants in the writ petition, they have stated in para-7 as follows:

"7. ....... In reply to the statement made in para 3.1 & 3.2 of the writ petition I state that it is admitted fact that the Ministry of home Affairs, Govt. of India, vide its No.27011/100/2012-R&W dated 23.11.2012 directed to the State/UT Govt. concerned may extend suitable benefits treating them as Ex-CAPE personnel status on the line of the benefits extended by the State/UT Govt. to the Ex-Serviceman of Defence Forces. ...."

In view of the categorical stand taken by the respondents in their reply, and the stand taken in the review petition, being completely in contrast, this court does not find any error apparent in the impugned judgment.

Accordingly, this review petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE

lodh