Sri Karan Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura
2025 Latest Caselaw 193 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Karan Sarkar vs The State Of Tripura on 28 July, 2025

                     HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                           AGARTALA
                       WP(C) No.618 of 2024

Sri Karan Sarkar,
son of Late Kanti Sarkar
of Village-Hapania, Durgapara,
P.O. ONGC, P.S. Amtali,
District - West Tripura, Pin- 799014

                                                    ---- Petitioner(s)

                                  Versus

1. The State of Tripura,
represented by the Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building,
New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala,
West Tripura

2. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, Government of Tripura,
New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex,
P.O. Kunjaban, Agartala,
West Tripura

3. The Director General of Police,
Government of Tripura, Police Headquarter,
Fire Brigade Chowmuhani, Agartala, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala, District- West Tripura,
Pin- 799001

4. The Inspector General of Police,
T.S.R., P.H.Q., Fire Brigade Chowmuhani,
Agartala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District-West Tripura, Pin- 799001

5. The Commandant,
1st Bn, Tripura State Rifles,
Gakulnagar, Sepahijala,
P.O. Bishalgarh, District- Sepahijala

6. The Accountant General (A & E),
Kunjaban, Agartala, P.O. Kunjaban,
P.S. N.C.C., District- West Tripura

7. Smt. Sita Rani Bhowmik (Sarkar),
wife of Late Kanti Sarkar,
resident of Village-Karailong,
P.S. Teliamura, P.O. Teliamura,
District- Khowai, State-Tripura

8. Smt. Bidhiya Sarkar, (Minor)
daughter of Late Kanti Sarkar,
resident of Village-Karailong, P.S. Teliamura,
P.O. Teliamura, District- Khowai, State-Tripura
(respondent No.8 is a minor, as such the

respondent No.7 her natural mother has been

representing the respondent No.8)

9. Smt. Urmila Sarkar, daughter of Late Kanti Sarkar, wife of Sri Raju Sutradhar, resident of Village-Karailong, P.S. Teliamura, P.O. Teliamura, District- Khowai, State-Tripura

[---

----Respondent(s) ______________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.

Mr. T.K. Bhattacharjee, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, G.A. Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumder, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Debalay Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Soumyadeep Saha, Adv.

Mr. Samrat Sarkar, Adv.

       Date of Hearing                   : 21.07.2025

       Date of Judgment
       & Order                           : 28.07.2025

       Whether fit for reporting : YES

_________________________________________________________

HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner for releasing all financial

benefits like leave salary, gratuity, GPF, Group Insurance etc. of his deceased

father who expired on 16.08.2023 during his service tenure and his deceased

father Kanti Sarkar was an employee in the capacity of Enrolled Follower i.e.

Group-D employee and he was posted under the control of respondent No.5

i.e. Commandant, 1st Bn, TSR, Gakulnagar, Bishalgarh, Sepahijala District,

Tripura.

[02] Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, Learned counsel along with Mr. T.K.

Bhattacharjee, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also

heard Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, Learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the

respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.6 and Mr. B.N. Majumder, Learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.7 to 9.

[03] At the time of hearing, Mr. A.K. Pal, Learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court that his father Kanti

Sarkar was serving as an Enrolled Follower under respondent No.5 who in

course of his tenure of service expired on 16.08.2023 leaving behind him and

the respondent Nos.7, 8 & 9 of this writ petition as his only sole legal heirs. It

was further submitted that after the death of his father he approached to the

respondent No.5 on 14.02.2024 to release the financial benefits to the extent

of his share but the respondent No.5 did not consider his representation and

under compelling circumstances he preferred this writ petition.

[04] On the other hand, the respondents have contested the petition

by filing their separate counter affidavits. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 denied

the assertions of the petitioner in the writ petition and submitted that the

deceased executed nomination form in respect of his wife and minor daughter

and as such, basing upon the nomination, they have released the financial

benefits and in support of the counter affidavit the said respondents submitted

some documents.

[05] Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent No.6 submitted that the said respondent is only discharging

the duties of authorization of pensionary benefits and no pension proposal so

far have been received by the said respondent.

[06] Mr. B.N. Majumder, Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondent Nos.7 to 9 also filed their separate counter affidavit and

submitted that the present petition in not maintainable and relying upon some

documents, the said respondents submitted that the petitioner is presently

aged about 25 years and furthermore, the marriage of his mother namely Smt.

Mithu Sarkar (Bhattacharjee) was divorced by an order of the Court in

connection with Case No.T.S.(Div.)18 of 2005 and thereafter, the deceased

father of the petitioner married the respondent No.7 and during his life time,

he executed all the nomination forms like family pension and other matters

and as such, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief/reliefs in this writ

petition.

[07] At the time of hearing, Mr. A.K. Pal, Learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner relying upon Rule 51 of the CCS Pension Rules,1972

drawn the attention of the Court that the petitioner is entitled to the admissible

benefits in respect of his deceased father to the extent of his share.

[08] On the other hand, Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharjee, Learned G.A.

submitted that since the deceased during his life time executed some

nomination forms in respect of family pension, DCRG and other matters and as

such, the department is bound to release the benefits in favour of respondent

No.7 in pursuance of said nomination forms.

[09] Learned senior counsel, Mr. D. Bhattacharya submitted that the

petitioner has not come before the Court with clean hands.

[10] Learned senior counsel, Mr. B.N. Majumder appearing on behalf of

the respondents No.7 to 9 first of all drawn the attention of the Court referring

Annexure-3 i.e. the notification dated 02.03.2019 of the Government of

Tripura regarding compassionate appointment and submitted that a married

son if lives separately from other members of the family shall not be

considered as a family member. Here in the case at hand, the petitioner since

2005 is residing separately along with his mother who was granted divorce by

his father during his life time in connection with Case No.T.S.(Div.)18/2005

and he was never dependent upon his deceased father during his life time and

by this time he has got married and residing separately deducting/striking out

his name from the family ration card and as such, he is also not entitled to

other service benefits of his deceased father. He further submitted that in view

of Rule 50, 51 and 53 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972 since his father made a

valid nomination in favour of his second wife i.e. respondent No.7 in this writ

petition and as such, he(petitioner) is not entitled to any death/retirement

benefit. In respect of GPF he submitted that in view of the General Provident

Fund (Central Services) Rules, 1960 as per Rule 33(i)(a) when a subscriber

dies leaving a family, and a valid nomination has been made in accordance

with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a family member in that case except

nominee, any other person cannot claim the amount. As such the petitioner is

not entitled to get the benefit as prayed for.

In respect of Group Insurance, Learned senior counsel further

submitted that since there was clear valid nomination in this regard and as

such, the present petitioner is also not entitled to any benefit from the amount

left by his deceased father.

But in respect of earn leave salary and Group Insurance Learned

senior counsel submitted that as per calculation of Department the leave salary

comes to Rs.2,16,720/- and Group Insurance comes to Rs.1,80,000/- which in

total comes to Rs.3,96,720/, the petitioner being the step son of the deceased

is entitled to 1/4th share which comes to Rs.99,180/- only and as such,

Learned senior counsel fairly submitted before the Court to pass appropriate

order in this regard.

[11] This present petition was travelled for a quite considerable period

and considering the nature of dispute, the matter was referred to the Mediation

Centre but no settlement could be arrived at and finally, the hearing took

place. From the calculation of the contesting respondents it appears that the

following amount came in respect of service benefits left by the deceased :

             Leave Salary :            Rs.2,16,720/-
             Gratuity :                Rs.6,93,000/-
             Family Pension :          Rs.18,900/- +
                                       500(Medical)
             Group Insurance :         Rs.1,80,000/-
             G.P.F. :                  Rs.5,62,000/-
             G.P.F.(Insurance) :       Rs.10,000/-

The respondent Nos.1 to 5 in their counter affidavit in para No.7

submitted that the following financial benefits have already been paid to the

step-mother of the petitioner Smt. Sita Rani Bhowmik as first surviving

member as per survival certificate :

(i) Leave salary Rs.2,02,860/-.

(ii) Pension Rs.15,750/- per month.

(iii) DCRG Rs.6,61,500/-.

(iv) GPF sanctioned Rs.5,99,265/- by the AG(A&E).

Tripura but payment is pending due to objection.

(v) GIS proposal already sent to DM & Collector, Sepahijala.

[12] It is also further mentioned that the pension and DCRG has been

sanctioned/released by the AG(A&E), Tripura vide PPO No.142445905 and GPO

No.122445905 in favour of Smt. Sita Rani Bhowmik(Sarkar) i.e. Respondent

No.7. The AG(A&E), Tripura while releasing pension and DCRG, did not

mention about the share of pension/DCRG in respect of other surviving

members including the petitioner. Besides leave salary amounting to

Rs.2,02,860/- has been sanction in favour of Smt. Sita Rani Bhowmik (Sarkar)

by the office of respondent No.5 on the basis of affidavit furnished by Smt. Sita

Rani Bhowmik (Sarkar) vide No.12 dated 02.02.2024 and the said affidavit has

been received by the office vide receipt No.0858 dated 03.02.2024. In the

affidavit it was mentioned that if any surviving members of the deceased Kanti

Sarkar raised objection, in future she shall be bound to return the part of

share. It was further mentioned that in the petition dated 14.02.2024 the

petitioner did not mention that his step-mother denied payment of the share of

the pensionary benefit or not. However, the respondent No.5 already directed

Smt. Sita Rani Bhowmik to pay the share of leave salary to her step son and

other survivors immediately.

[13] To address the issues regarding entitlement now let us

discuss/see about the relevant provisions of the connected Rules :

Rule 51(1)(a) of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 provides that :

51. Persons to whom gratuity is payable (1)(a) The gratuity payable under Rule 50 shall be paid to the person or persons on whom the right to receive the gratuity is conferred by means of a nomination under Rule 53.

Rule 53 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 further provides :

53. Nominations (1) A Government servant shall, on his initial confirmation in a service or post, make a nomination in Form 1 or 2, as may be, as appropriate in the circumstances of the case, conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the [retirement gratuity/death gratuity] payable under Rule 50 :

Provided that if at the time of making the nomination-

(i) the Government servant has a family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any person or persons other than the members of his family; or

(ii) the Government servant has not family, the nomination may be made in favour of a person or persons, or a body of individuals, whether incorporated or not.

Further, Sub-Rule 6 of Rule 50 of the CCS Pension Rules, 1972

also provides as under :

(6) For the purpose of this rule and Rules 51, 52 and 53, „family‟, in relation to a Government servant, means -

(i) wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant,

(ii) husband, including judicially separated husband in the case of a female Government servant,

(iii) Sons including stepsons and adopted sons,

(iv) unmarried daughters including stepdaughters and adopted daughters,

(v) widowed daughters including step daughters and adopted daughters,

(vi) father,

Including adoptive parents in the case of individuals whose personal law permits adoption

(vii) mother,

(viii) brothers below the age of eighteen years including stepbrothers,

(ix) unmarried sisters and widowed sisters including stepsisters,

(x) married daughters, and

(xi) children or a pre-deceased son.

On perusal of the aforesaid Rules 51(a) it appears that if the

government servant made a valid nomination, in that case, gratuity shall be

paid to the nominated individual. Here in the case at hand on perusal of the

relevant documents being produced by Learned G.A. as directed by this Court

it appears that the deceased during his life time made nomination in respect of

DCRG in favour of his second wife i.e. respondent No.7 and the minor daughter

i.e. respondent No.8. As such, those two are entitled to get the benefits of

DCRG as per Rule.

Situated thus, the present petitioner is not entitled to get the

benefit of death/retirement gratuity from the entitled amount accrued by the

deceased.

[14] Now, in respect of Provident Fund let us see the relevant

provisions of Rule. In this regard as per Rule 33 of the General Provident Fund

(Central Service) Rules, 1960 it provides that when a subscriber dies leaving

his family, and a valid nomination has been made in accordance with the

provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a family member, the amount standing to the

credit in the Provident Fund is payable to the nominee to the exclusion of all

others.

Learned senior counsel in course of hearing further submitted that

since the deceased made nomination in favour of respondent No.7 and the

minor daughter and as such, the present petitioner is also not entitled to any

share from that amount.

Now, for the sake of convenience let us see herein below the

relevant provision of Rule 33(i)(a) :

33. Procedure on death of a subscriber On the death of a subscriber before the amount standing to his credit has become payable, or where the amount has become payable, before payment has been made :

(i) When the subscriber leaves a family -

(a) if a nomination made by the subscriber in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 in favour of a member or members of his family subsists, the amount standing to his credit in the Fund or the part thereof to which the nomination relates shall become payable to his nominee or nominees in the proportionate specified in the nomination;"

Further Rule 5(1) of the said Rule provides 'Nominations' which is

as under :

"5. Nominations (1) A subscriber shall, at the time of joining the Fund, send to the Accounts Officer through the Head of Office, a nomination conferring on one or more persons the right to receive the amount that may stand to his credit in the Fund in the event of his death, before that amount has become payable or having become payable has not been paid:

Provided that where a subscriber is a minor, he shall be required to make the nomination only on his attaining the age of majority: Provided further that a subscriber who has a family at the time of making the nomination shall make such nomination only in favour of a member or members of his family:

Provided further that the nomination made by the subscriber in respect of any other Provident Fund to which he was subscribing before joining the Fund shall, if the amount to his credit in such other fund has been transferred to his credit in the Fund, be deemed to be a nomination duly made under this rule until he makes a nomination in accordance with this rule."

From the aforesaid Rules it appears that in the case at hand the

deceased also during his life time executed nomination in favour of respondent

Nos.7 and 8 and as such, the present petitioner is not entitled to any share as

prayed for in respect of Earned Leave Salary.

Similarly in respect of GPF Insurance the deceased also executed

nomination form in favour of respondent Nos.7 and 8 being minor and as such,

the present petitioner is also not entitled to any share from the said amount

left/accrued by the deceased.

[15] In course of hearing of argument, Learned counsel for the

petitioner could not place any material to discard the submission made by Mr.

B.N. Majumder, Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

Nos.7 to 9 save and except referring one judgment passed by a Coordinate

bench of this High Court in WP(C)No.515/2017, the subject matter of the said

judgment differs from the facts of the present case and as such, the same

cannot be applied in this case.

[16] Now, regarding Group Insurance and Leave Salary only the

petitioner is entitled to 1/4th share of the accrued amount. From Annexure-R/1

it appears that the State also relied upon survival certificate from which it

appears that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of deceased Karan Sarkar.

From Annexure-R/2 it appears that Rs.2,02,860/- has already been released in

favour of respondent No.7. However, GPF amount although sanctioned but not

yet been released due to objection raised by the petitioner. Regarding

compassionate appointment the petitioner will not be entitled to any

employment since he is presently married and aged about 25 years and living

separately along with his wife at Haphania, Durgapara and he has also in his

affidavit mentioned his age at the time of filing the writ petition before the

Court on 07.09.2024. Furthermore since regarding family pension nomination

has already been made by the deceased during his life time in respect of

respondent Nos.7 and 8 being minor and as such, the petitioner is also not

entitled to get any amount from the family pension as his case does not fall

under the purview of Rule.

Now, from the aforesaid discussions it appears that the present

petitioner is only entitled to 1/4th share from earn leave salary and group

insurance and as such, the respondent No.5 being the authority of the

deceased employee is to ensure that the proportionate share of the petitioner

is released in his favour. The respondent No.7 although executed one affidavit

but she did not abide by the terms and conditions made in the affidavit

executed by her on 02.02.2024 on the basis of which the respondent No.5

released the service benefit accrued by the deceased in favour of respondent

No.7.

[17] With this observation the present writ petition stands disposed of

with the following observations :

That the respondent No.5 being the controlling/disbursal authority of the

deceased Karan Sarkar shall ensure release of 1/4th share in respect of Earn

leave salary and group insurance in favour of the present petitioner if

necessary by deducting from the withhold amount as mentioned in para No.7

of the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents. The amount to be

calculated by the said respondent in respect of the accrued amount of the

deceased employee as the respondent No.7 failed to pay the entitled amount

to the petitioner, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of delivery of

judgment. The petitioner herein shall submit one representation along with a

copy of this judgment to the respondent No.5 for immediate compliance within

a period of 7(seven) days after receipt of a copy of this judgment. The relevant

file of the Department be restored accordingly to the Department through

Learned G.A. along with a copy of the judgment/order.

The case is thus disposed of.

Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

MOUMIT Digitally signed by MOUMITA DATTA

A DATTA 00:58:22 +05'30' Date: 2025.08.01

Sabyasachi B