Manju Chakraborty vs State Of Tripura And Anr.

Heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents.

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner who is the unmarried daughter of Sudhir Chakraborty (since deceased) has urged this court for directing the respondents to release the family pension to her in terms of the memorandum under No.F.6(2)-FIN(G)/2009 dated 12.04.2010 [Annexure-5 to the writ petition] as by virtue of that memorandum, the unmarried daughter is entitled to get the family pension on certain conditions as clarified in Para-(viii) of the said memorandum. Though the petitioner had duly applied with all documents for the said pension but the respondents did not release such pension. On the contrary by a communication dated 27.08.2009 [Annexure-6 to the writ petition] she was informed that she was further required to file the documents showing the family members left by Suprava Chakraborty, the deceased spouse of Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty, Ex-UDC.

Suprava Chakraborty, the mother of the petitioner, enjoyed the family pension till her death on 17.01.2002, as is evident from the death certificate dated 20.03.2002 [Annexure-3 to the writ petition]. The petitioner has submitted that she had filed the survival certificate which was issued for death of Sudhir Chandra Chakraborty on 29.07.2009. From perusal of the said survival certificate, after death of Suprava Chakraborty, spouse of the former employee, who used to draw the family pension is entitled to have the pensions under the said memorandum. But the respondents were not satisfied with the said survival certificate and hence, the prayer of the petitioner filed on 04.03.2010 [Annexure-10 to the writ petition] was not favourably responded.

The respondents by filing their reply has stated in Para-11 that even though the petitioner was asked to furnish the survival certificate in respect of the family members left behind by her father and mother from the competent authority and she was reminded time to time, but she did not file such survival certificate and that is the only reason that hindered the respondents in issuing the family pension in favour of the petitioner.

This court is really at wit's end for the way the entire case has been handled by the respondents inasmuch as the survival certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Agartala under No. 426 dated 29.07.2002 [Annexure-4 to the writ petition] is substantive enough to gather the particulars of the survivors of the deceased spouse as well as of Sudhir Chakraborty. The name of the deceased spouse namely Suprava Chakraborty is not appearing in the said survival certificate dated 29.07.2002 for obvious reason that when the survival certificate was issued, the spouse of the deceased employee was no more in this world. Thus, the respondents ought to have relied on that survival certificate dated 29.07.2002 without nagging the petitioner to submit another survival certificate in respect of Suprava Chakraborty, the deceased spouse of the former government employee.

In this context, this court is persuaded to observe that the respondents are under obligation to release the pension in favour of the petitioner in terms of the memorandum dated 12.04.2010. Accordingly, it is ordered.

The respondents particularly the respondent No.2, is directed to take all steps to release the pension of the petitioner within a period of 3(three) months from the day when the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order.

In terms of the above, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.

There shall be no order as to costs.