Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 124 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Nirubala Das

2022-03-14

INDRAJIT MAHANTY, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT Indrajit Mahanty; CJ. - 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. 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. 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.