Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 221 (TRI)

Archita Deb v. State of Tripura

2022-05-05

INDRAJIT MAHANTY

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mangal Debbarma, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel Mr. T. Chakraborty, associate of the learned Assistant Solicitor General. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner namely Smt. Archita Deb, W/o Sri Ajit Paul Chowdhury who was working as a police Constable vide No.5654 and was posted at the office of the Superintendent of Police, Unakoti up to 08.07.2019. Thereafter, he was transferred from Unakoti district to West Tripura district. It appears from Annexure-6 that Sri Ajit Paul Chowdhury was released from Unakoti district on 09.07.2019 and was to join at West Tripura district and went away for the purpose of joining at his new place of posting and in the meantime, the writ petitioner had no contact with her husband due to family dispute problems and the petitioner on 31.10.2020 received a notice No.12624-26/SP/RSV/WD/2020 dated 25.09.2020 that her husband Sri Ajit Paul Chowdhury had not joined at the place of his transfer. On learning of the aforesaid fact, the writ petitioner contacted her mother in-law at Madhuban (Kathaltali), Ranirkhamar, PS-Amtali, West Tripura and learnt from her mother in-law that two months before the lockdown her husband had visited her mother in-law's house at Madhuban. Thereafter, the writ petitioner made contact with the employer of her husband at West Tripura district SP office, but failed to trace him. Ultimately, finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed a missing entry before Kailashahar PS on 10.12.2020. It appears that this complaint of the petitioner was transferred by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Kailashahar Police Station to the Amtali Police Station with the original petition of the petitioner for taking necessary action as per law (Annexure-6). 3. Mr. Ultimately, finding no other alternative, the petitioner filed a missing entry before Kailashahar PS on 10.12.2020. It appears that this complaint of the petitioner was transferred by the Sub-Inspector of Police of Kailashahar Police Station to the Amtali Police Station with the original petition of the petitioner for taking necessary action as per law (Annexure-6). 3. Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, in the present case placed reliance on an office memorandum issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare dated 25.06.2013 in reference to which said memorandum recorded the decision of the Government of India to grant family pension to the family members and dependents of the missing Government servant subject to the following two conditions: "4(i) The family must lodge a report with the concerned Police Station and obtain a report from the Police, that the employee/ pensioner/family pensioner has not been traced despite all efforts made by them. The report may be a First Information Report or any other report such as a Daily Diary/General Diary Entry. 4(ii) An Indemnity Bond should be taken from the nominee/dependants of the employee/pensioner/family pensioner that all payments will be adjusted against the payments due to the employee/pensioner/family pensioner in case she/he appears on the scene and makes any claim." 4. It appears that office memorandum dated 25.06.2013 at Annexure-8 is the special memorandum authorizing payment of family pension to family members and dependents of a missing Government employee and the obvious intent behind it is in order to ensure that the family members and/or dependents are not put into any financial difficulty. This is independent of any right that the employer may have for taking appropriate action against an employee and independent thereof. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that in a given case, it may be possible for an employer to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against an employee to any delinquency. However, the right to the family members and dependents of a missing Government employee for release of family pension and any other benefits that he may be entitled to in terms of the office memorandum in the event the Government employee goes missing is independent thereof and is a right which accrues to the family members and dependents of a missing Government employee. The aforesaid distinction is clear from the fact that this is probably the only incident where a beneficiary has to provide the State, the employer, with an Indemnity Bond. 5. Mr. Mangal Debbarma, the learned Addl. Government Advocate, appearing for the State placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed by him on behalf of the State inter alia stating therein that action as deemed necessary against Sri Ajit Paul Chowdhury for unauthorized absence is in contemplation. 6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by the learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of the office of the Accountant General. The affidavit on behalf of respondent No.7 also highlights the requirement for compliances of requirements of paragraphs 4(i) and 4(ii) of the circular issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare as noted hereinabove. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and perusing the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, there is no doubt that the family and dependents of a missing Government employee become entitled to family pension on compliance of the conditions as imposed in the office memorandum dated 25.06.2013 and in particular, paragraphs 4(i) and 4(ii) thereof. On perusing the averments made in the pleadings, it is clear that the petitioner had lodged a complaint before the Kailashahar Police Station, Unakoti Tripura on 10.12.2020 inter alia stating that she had searched for her husband and found him missing as intimated to her by the State employer since 09.07.2019. The said FIR has been transferred to Amtali Police Station. Therefore, this Court directs the following: (i) The Amtali Police Station shall conduct necessary inquiry and submit a report as contemplated under paragraph 4(i) of the office memorandum dated 25.06.2013 under Annexure-8, preferably within a period of 2(two) months from today. (ii) The petitioner shall provide an Indemnity Bond as contemplated under paragraph 4(ii) of the office memorandum dated 25.06.2013 at the earliest after obtaining the report under direction (i). (iii) The Head of Department, i.e. Superintendent of Police, West Tripura district shall thereafter on perusal of documents as provided by the police under direction no. (i) and the Indemnity Bond as the petitioner has been directed to comply, within a period of one month therefrom from receipt of the same issue the necessary family pension order to the office of the Accountant General. 8. Writ petition is allowed in terms of the directions issued hereinabove. (i) and the Indemnity Bond as the petitioner has been directed to comply, within a period of one month therefrom from receipt of the same issue the necessary family pension order to the office of the Accountant General. 8. Writ petition is allowed in terms of the directions issued hereinabove. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.