Tripura High Court
Smt. Imala Marak vs The State Of Tripura And 2 Ors on 5 September, 2024
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 559 of 2024
Smt. Imala Marak
---Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura and 2 Ors.
---Respondent(s)
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. A. Acharjee, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Debbarma, Addl. GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
05.09.2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
[2] This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for
seeking the following relief(s)
(i) Admit this petition;
(ii) Issue notice upon the Respondents;
(iii) Call for the Records; and
(iv) After hearing the parties would be pleased enough to direct the Respondents to
provide pension benefit and to provide financial benefit, release of G.P.F,
leave salary or other admissible grant or Employment assistance etc. due to
the death of the deceased Husband namely Mirendra Marak who has died on
03.06.2015 during his service tenure.(v) After hearing the parties would be
pleased enough for quashing or setting aside the memo vide No.F.6(12)-
PWD(E-II)/2001(L) dated 07.11.2005 wherein the deceased husband of the
petitioner has been dismissed from the service with effect from the date of
issue of this order;
(v) After hearing the parties would be pleased enough to direct the Respondents to
provide pension benefit and to provide financial benefit, release of G.P.F,
leave salary or other admissible grant or Employment assistance etc. due to
the death of the deceased Husband namely Mirendra Marak who has died on
03.06.2015 during his service tenure.
[3] It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the wife of Late
Mirendra Marak, who is the Ex-Helper under the Executive Engineer, Udaipur
Division, P.W.D (R&B), Udaipur, Gomati Tripura. It is contended by the petitioner
that during the service tenure the husband of the petitioner went to his office on
14/02/2005 but on that day surprisingly he was missing from the office and the
deceased husband did not return to his house. On 22/02/2005, the S.D.O (P.W.D) Sub-
Division No.1, Udaipur, South Tripura, (Respondent No.2) lodged a missing dairy
before the officer in-charge, R.K.Pur P.S. Udaipur, South Tripura (the then) wherein
the G.D. entry had been lodged and categorically stated that unauthorized absent of the
deceased from Government duties on 14/02/2005 to till today and in this regard the
Respondent No-2 has issued the letter vide No. F. ESTT/G/1/SDO-1/PWD/1252-54,
Dated 21.02.2005.
[4] Thereafter the respondent No.3, the Chief Engineer P.W.D (R&B),
Tripura, Agartala, passed an order by Vide No. Ref.No.F.6 (12) PWD (E-II)/2001(L)
dated 07/11/2005, wherein it is categorically stated that the deceased Mirendra Marak
was helper in the office of the S.D.O (PWD) Sub-Division, No.1 and also stated that
Sri Mirendra Marak, Helper is not known and he is also not available even at the last
known address as recorded in his Service Book. Notification was given in News paper
vide this Department Memorandum No. F.6 (12)-PWD (E-II)/2001(L) dated
16/09/2005 which was published on 22/09/2005 giving him an opportunity to represent
within 15(fifteen) days if he has to say anything in respect of his un-authorized absence
from duties.
[5] The said Sri Mirendra Marak, Helper has neither turned up nor
represented anything within the stipulated time as mentioned in the aforesaid
Memorandum and it is also stated that the Service of the deceased has been dismissed
with effect on the date of issue of the order.
[6] It is further contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted
one representation dated on 17.12.2022 for getting pensionary benefit compassionate
appointment and other financial benefits of deceased husband Late Mirendra Marak
(Ex-Helper) who was missing from 14.02.2005 in service tenure and expired on
03.06.2015 and in the representation, the petitioner categorically stated that the
deceased Husband of the petitioner was only earning member of the family and there is
no other source of income in the year, 2007 and the petitioner has prayed for financial
benefits and compassionate appointment due to the death of her husband as because
there was no response after searching everywhere the petitioner was not traceable and
was missing from his office but lastly the petitioner applied for death certificate of the
deceased and thereafter death certificate was issued on 04.02.2020 and in the death
certificate it is categorically stated that the deceased Husbanddied on 03.06.2015 and it
has been issued by registrar(Birth & Death) Village Counsel of Peratia, But till today
no response from the side of the Respondents, whether the representation is accepted or
rejected till today.
[7] It is also mentioned here that the son of the petitioner namely Binush
Marak has also submitted one representation on 17.12.2022 on the similar prayer but
the said representation also has not been accepted or rejected till today. Aggrieved
thereby, the petitioner has approached this court.
[8] A fare reading of the record shows that the service of the husband of the
petitioner was dismissed way back in 2005 and the same is unchallenged till date. It
also appears from the record that the husband of the petitioner went to his office on
14/02/2005 but on that day surprisingly he was missing from the office and the
deceased husband did not return to his house. It is only in 2023 the petitioner herein
went before the respondents for seeking the pensionary benefit. Mr. M. Debbarma,
learned Addl. GA has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 08.12.2023
stating that the issue was referred to the Law Department, Government of Tripura and
accordingly the Law Department; Government of Tripura opined that "As per Rule 24
of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 dismissal or removal of a Government servant from a
service or post entails for forfeiture of his past service. Further, as per Rule 41 of the
said Rules a Government servant who is dismissed or removed from service shall
forfeit his pension and gratuity. On the other hand, it is also contended by the Addl.
GA that if other admissible dues if any, to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased
husband.
[9] In view of the above submission, this court finds force in the argument of
respondent counsel that the termination order of the petitioner's husband in 2005
became final as unchallenged and thus the same cannot be ignored and the petitioner is
not entitled for the relief sought. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner
herein has not approached this court with clean hands and has failed to make out the
case. Stating thus, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it
stands dismissed. As a sequel, stay, if any, stands vacated. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands closed.
JUDGE
Dipak
