The State Of Tripura And Others vs Sri Manik Sarkar (Widower Of Lt. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 633 Tri

                                   Page 1 of 4




                       HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA
                              W.A. No.464/2020

The State of Tripura and others
                                                                ----Appellant(s)
                                      Versus
Sri Manik Sarkar (widower of Lt. Ali Bhowmik)
                                                              -----Respondent(s)

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dipankar Sharma, Addl. G.A.

For Respondent(s)                 : Mr. P.K. Pal, Advocate,
                                    Mr. S. Datta, Advocate.

         HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY

                                        Order
29/06/2021
(Akil Kureshi, C.J.)

The appeal is filed by the State Government to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.2020 passed in WP(C)

No.990 of 2018.

Short issue involved in the petition was of the benefit of Group

Insurance Scheme being made available to the husband of deceased

Government employee. The respondent herein original petitioner had

contended that his wife was appointed as a Junior Physical Instructor in the

State service in the scale of pay of Rs.970-2,400/- under a memorandum

dated 30.05.1990 and the wife of the petitioner joined the duties on the said

post on 16.01.1991. She expired on 02.08.2016. According to the petitioner,

the benefit of the Group Insurance Scheme formulated by the Government

under Office Memorandum dated 30.11.1983 was available. The petitioner

applied for such benefit but the same was denied. He approached the High

Court. Before the learned Single Judge the State Government took the stand

that the scheme was not applicable to the wife of the petitioner since she was

engaged in Government service after attaining the age of 50 years.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment came to the

conclusion that the petitioner was appointed in Government service from

16.01.1991. She was born on 19.01.1961 and, therefore, clearly she had not

crossed the age of 50 years when she was engaged in Government service.

However, noticing that no deduction of the subscription for the scheme was

made in case of the wife of the petitioner till 01.01.2013, the learned Single

Judge while disposing the writ petition directed that the Group Insurance

money as per the said scheme may be released after adjusting the subscription

amounts payable by the employee for the past period.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any

error in the view of the learned Single Judge. Clause (1) of the scheme on

which learned Addl. Government Advocate Mr. Dipankar Sharma has placed

heavy reliance reads as under:

"1.1. The „scheme‟ shall apply to all State Government servants. Contract employees, persons on deputation from the Central Government and other State Government, public sector undertakings, or other autonomous organization, person appointed on contract, casual labourers, persons paid at daily rates, persons not in whole time employment, persons in seasonal employment, persons appointed in short term vacancies and ad-hoc employees will not be covered by the „scheme‟. The „scheme‟ will also not apply to persons recruited under the state Government after attaining the age of 50 years."

As per this clause the scheme would not apply to a person

recruited in the Government service after attaining the age of 50 years. The

record would suggest that the petitioner and several other Junior Physical

Instructors were engaged by the State Government during the period between

1989 to 1993. The petitioner was engaged in the year 1991. Under a

memorandum dated 27.12.2012 the Government regularized the services of

all these Junior Physical Instructors. This regularization order also provided

that the incumbents are enrolled as members of Group Insurance Scheme,

1983 w.e.f. 01.01.2013. It is undisputed that the petitioner was also enrolled

in the said scheme and regular deductions towards the contribution to the

scheme were made from a monthly salary till she died. The stand of the

Government that she was engaged in Government service after crossing the

age of 50 years is thus not borne out from the record. She may have been

regularized in service by the memorandum dated 27.12.2012, nevertheless she

had joined service in the year 1991. It was on account of this delayed

regularization that created the anomaly of the insurance contribution being

deducted only w.e.f. 01.01.2013. This defect has also been cured by the

learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment by providing that the

insurance amount as per the scheme would be paid after adjusting the

contribution for the period prior to 01.01.2013.

Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

   (S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J                         (AKIL KURESHI), CJ




Pulak