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
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
The court affirmed the widow's entitlement to death benefits and mandated the respondents to consider claims in accordance with statutory provisions.
Point of law: it is the spouse of a deceased employee who is entitled to the family pension upon the death of the concerned employee engaged in any government organisation. In the present case, the r....
The widow is entitled to the family pension and retirement benefits as per the statutory provisions, irrespective of the deceased employee's nomination of legal heirs.
Entitlement to family pension and pensionary benefits is determined by the legal wedlock, as per the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, and the importance of following the provisions of law ....
Legal heirs of deceased employees are entitled to benefits, with specific regulations governing allocation among those from multiple marriages, particularly concerning pension and compassionate appoi....
The right to pension as a vested entitlement necessitates recognition of only legitimate dependents for the disbursement of retiral benefits, irrespective of the existence of previous marital ties.
A second marriage contracted during the subsistence of a first marriage is void, disentitling the second wife to pensionary benefits. However, a minor child born from such a void marriage remains ent....
Under the Gujarat Pension Rules, the legally wedded wife of a male government employee is entitled to family pension despite any erroneous nomination by the employee prioritizing someone else.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.