SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Tri) 21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AT AGARTALA
T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.
Pramila Goswami and Another - Appellants
Versus
The State of Tripura and Others - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 14 of 2025
Decided On : 13-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sankar Lodh
For the Respondent: M. Debbarma

The court affirmed the widow's entitlement to death benefits and mandated the respondents to consider claims in accordance with statutory provisions.

Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules - Rules 50, 51, 53; GPF Rules - Rule 5; Pension Rules - Rule 54(11) - Death benefits - Petitioners, widow and legal heirs of deceased employee, claim entitlement to death cum retirement benefits including gratuity and pension - Respondents directed to consider claims in accordance with law. (Paras 3, 10)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Writ petition filed for mandamus and certiorari to compel payment of benefits and to challenge non-response of respondents - Court emphasizes the need for a speaking order from respondents within stipulated time. (Paras 7, 10)

Facts of the case:
The husband of the petitioner No.1 died during service, and she was granted compassionate appointment. However, death benefits were not paid, prompting the writ petition. The petitioners argue that the official respondents' request for an undertaking from the mother-in-law is contrary to the rules. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court directed the petitioners to present their claims to the official respondents, who must then issue a speaking order within two months. (Paras 10)

Issues: The main issues include the entitlement of the widow to death benefits and the procedural response of the respondents to the petitioners' claims. (Paras 3, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners are entitled to present their claims for benefits, and the respondents must consider these claims in accordance with the law, ensuring a timely response. (Paras 10)

Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions.

JUDGMENT :

T. AMARNATH GOUD, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sankar Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the official respondents.

2. The brief facts of this case are that the husband of the petitioner No.1 died-in-harness during service. Under the die-in- harness scheme, the petitioner was granted a compassionate appointment and is currently in service. However, since the death benefits such as gratuity, encashment, and other entitlements have not been paid to her, she, through her Advocate, submitted a request letter dated 30.09.2024. As there was no response, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Lodh, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that as per Rule 54 of the Pension Rules, Sub-rule 11, only the husband and wife are entitled to the pension. Since his client is the widow of the deceased employee, no one else can be considered for granting the pension. Therefore, the official respondents’ request that his client obtain an undertaking from her mother-in-law, i.e., the unofficial respondent, is misplaced and contrary to the rule. Regarding gratuity, Rules 50, 51, and 53 of the CCS (CCA) Rules provide entitlement to his client. Additionally, Rule 5 of the GPF Rules states that if a nominee exists, the benefits should be given to the nominee, and if there is no nominee, the amount should be distributed among the legal heirs. In this case, the petitioners has produced a survival certificate, which demonstrates that there are three legal heirs i.e., herself, her child, and her mother-in-law. Hence, the benefits should be disbursed among them. Similarly, leave salary should be distributed among the legal heirs. As for her status as a widow, the official respondents have already granted her a job under the die-in-harness scheme, treating her as the widow of the deceased employee. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding her status. The respondents have ignored the statutory provisions enshrined in the relevant rules, and their reply contradicts these rules.

4. Mr. M. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents (employer of the deceased husband of the petitioner), contended that during the course of the writ petition, the respondents issued a communication dated 13.01.2025. In light of this development, no relief can be granted in this writ petition, and he prayed for its dismissal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the evidence.

6. During the course of arguments, Mr. S. Lodh, counsel for the petitioner, drew the Court’s attention to the relevant legal provisions. He further contended that since the unofficial respondent No. 3 (the mother-in-law) has not been cooperating and has driven the petitioners out of her house, the petitioners has approached this Court seeking the benefits as per the statutory provisions.

7. Admittedly, the present writ petition has been filed before any impugned order was passed by the respondents. The prayer in the writ petition are as follows:-

“(i) ISSUE RULE calling upon the respondents and each one of them, to show cause as to why a Writ of Certiorari and/or in the nature thereof, shall not be issued for calling for the records, lying with the officials respondents, for rendering substantial and conscionable justice to the petitioner;

(ii) ISSUE RULE calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus and/or in the nature thereof, mandating/directing the respondents to pay one third each of the death cum retirement benefits, viz. (a) Group Insurance, (b) Death cum Retirement Gratuity, (c) Leave Salary, and (d) General Provident Fund, and 27 days unpaid salary w.e.f. 01.06.2022 to 27.06.2022 to the petitioners and Pro-respondent No.3, and also pay family pension to the petitioner No.1, for the death of Biswajit Sharma, LDC served under respondent No.2

(iii) After hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rules absolute in terms of Prayers (i) and (ii) above;

(iv) Any other relief(s) as to this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top