Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura vs Smti. Nirubala Das on 14 March, 2022
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
W.A. No.59/2018
1. The State of Tripura, represented by the Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Tripura, having his office at Pandit Nehru Complex,
Gorkhabasti, PO-Kunjaban, PS-New Capital Complex, District:-West
Tripura.
2. The Director General of Police, Government of Tripura, having his office
at Pandit Nehru Complex, Gorkhabasti, PO-Kunjaban, PS-New Capital
Complex, District:-West Tripura.
3. The Joint Secretary, Government of Tripura, Home Department, having
his office at Pandit Nehru Complex, Gorkhabasti, PO-Kunjaban, PS-New
Capital Complex, District:-West Tripura.
-----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smti. Nirubala Das, W/O. Late Abhinash Chandra Das, Resident of
Village:-Town Pratapgarh, PO-Agartala, PS-East Agartala, Jirania, District:-
West Tripura.
-----Petitioner-Respondent(s)
2. The Accountant General (A&E), Agartala, Tripura, PO-Kunjaban, PS-
New Capital Complex, Agartala, District:-West Tripura.
-----Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Debalay Bhattacharjee, G.A.,
Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Asstt. S.G.,
Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Advocate,
Mrs. Riya Chakraborty, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Date of hearing & judgment : 14th March, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : YES.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.)
Heard learned Government Advocate Mr. Debalay
Bhattacharjee appearing for the appellants-State. Also heard learned senior
counsel Mr. Somik Deb assisted by learned counsel Mrs. Riya Chakraborty
appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) as well
as learned Asstt. Solicitor General Mr. Bidyut Majumder appearing on
behalf of the respondent No.2-Union of India (Accountant General).
2. Challenge in the present writ appeal has been made to the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) No.1482 of 2017
whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner namely Smti. Nirubala
Das came to be allowed directing the State to release family pension to the
petitioner which is admissible to her in terms of memorandum dated
16.08.1999 from the date it became applicable, i.e. with effect from
01.01.1999.
3. Learned Government Advocate in support of the present
appeal submits that the right of parents of deceased Government employee
to claim for family pension itself arose on the issue of a notification by the
State of Tripura vide memorandum dated 16.08.1999. Admittedly, the son of
the present respondent-writ petitioner who was working as a constable
passed away on 20.09.1997 prior to the issue of the aforesaid notification.
Learned Single Judge dealt with this issue and in our considered view
correctly held that even though the Government employee had passed away
prior to the 1999 notification being passed, parents of a deceased employee
who passed away prior to the date of the notification would still be entitled
to the benefit thereunder.
4. The further contention of the learned Government Advocate
was that the Hon'ble Single Judge omitted to take into consideration the
1999 notification which stipulated as follows:
"Parents who are wholly dependent on the Government
servants when he/she alive, shall be included in the definition
of family in case where the deceased employee had left
behind neither a widow nor a child. Such parents will be
eligible for family pension at the ordinary rate, i.e. 30% of the
pay of the deceased employee. Such benefit shall also be
admissible for the parents when the deceased government
employee was Bachelor/unmarried.
These orders shall come into force with effect from the
1st January, 1999."
In other words, learned Government Advocate submitted that
although the private respondent did produce a survival certificate on the
death of her son, yet no evidence was produced by her in support of the fact
that she was a "dependent on her son" who was the deceased Government
employee. He further submitted that as would be evident from the records of
the case the private respondent made her application under the 1999
notification only on 26.06.2017 which came to be rejected vide order dated
06.11.2017 which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition.
5. If satisfactory evidence is brought before the State, it is fairly
admitted by the learned Government Advocate that in such event she would
be entitled to family pension from the date of her application, i.e.
26.06.2017.
6. Learned counsel for the private respondent on the other hand
supported the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Single Judge and submitted
that the respondent-writ petitioner is a poor widow having lost both her son
as well as her husband and is entitled to the benefit of family pension at least
from 1999.
7. While we agree with the findings of the Hon'ble Single Judge
to the extent as noted hereinabove, yet at the same time we are of the
considered view that a claimant for family pension under the 1999
notification is also duty bound to establish his/her dependency on the
deceased Government employee in order to substantiate the claim for family
pension. There is no doubt in the present case that the private respondent is
the mother of the deceased Government employee since she produced a
survival certificate before the authorities concerned. However, the issue of
dependency on the deceased Government employee cannot be assumed or
presumed and hence, on the other hand to be established by the person
claiming family pension thereunder.
8. Therefore, while setting aside the order of the Hon'ble Single
Judge in the present matter, we remit the matter back to the State and
provide the respondent (writ petitioner) a further opportunity to produce
evidence of her dependency on the income of her deceased son for the
purpose of consideration for grant of family pension.
9. Accordingly, we direct that no sooner the private respondent
produces such evidence before the authorities concerned, they may consider
the same on its own merits and pass final orders therefrom within a period of
four weeks from the date on which the necessary evidence of the
dependency of the respondent on her deceased son's income is provided.
We further make it clear that if it is found that the evidence
produced by the private respondent is adequate to establish her dependency,
then she shall be entitled for family pension w.e.f. 26.06.2017, i.e. the date
on which she made the application seeking family pension.
We hope and trust that the State will act in a responsive manner
keeping in view that the respondent is a widow and is of advanced age and
will deal with it at the earliest.
10. The private respondent is at liberty to approach the concerned
SDM and make necessary application before him to conduct the necessary
inquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of her application and
the result of such inquiry shall be intimated to the appellants who shall
release all outstanding family pension in favour of the private respondent, if
held entitled to, within a further period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of the inquiry report.
11. In view of the aforesaid directions, the present writ appeal
stands disposed of.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Pulak
