Satya Ranjan Paul and Another vs State of Tripura and Others

D. Biswas, J.—Heard Mr. Ashok Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the State of Tripura and Mr. P.B. Dhar. Learned C.G.S.C. for the Accountant General, Tripura.

The petition has been filed by the parents of late Chandan Pal who was working as a Research Assistant under the Department of Agriculture, Government of Tripura and died-in-harness on 18.12.86. The father of the Petitioner approached the State Government for according sanction for family pension with effect from 18.12.86 on the ground that they were fully dependent on their son late Chandan Pal who had left behind neither a widow nor any child. It is also stated that they are eligible to have such pension as their income does not exceed Rs. 2550/-.

The State Government referred the matter to the A.G. Tripura and A.G. Tripura on examination of the same opined that the writ Petitioners were not entitled to family pension.

It is a fact that the idea of extending the benefit of family pension was implemented by the Central Government on the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission. It is also a fact that the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission was made effective with effect from 1.1.96. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute as to the entitlement of the family pension by the parents of a deceased employee if the death occurs on or after 1.1.96. This is so far the employees of the Central Government are concerned.

The State of Tripura by memorandum dated 16.8.99 implemented the scheme extending the benefit of family pension to the parents of the deceased employee. The said memorandum has been brought into force on 1.1.99.

The question before this Court is as to whether the benefit of the scheme could be given to the parents of the employees of the State Government for the period before 1.1.99: The answer is obviously ''no''. Because the State Government while issuing the memorandum made it specific that the memorandum shall come into force with effect from 1.1.99. But the said memorandum no where indicates that the parents of any employee who died prior to 1.1.99 will not be entitled to family pension with effect from the date when the scheme has been brought into force, i.e. on or before 1.1.99.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in my considered opinion, there cannot be any bar in extending the benefit of the aforesaid scheme to the parents of the deceased employee who died prior to 1.1.99 with effect from 1.1.99. This is a piece of welfare legislation and aims to achieve the objective of giving the financial protection to the helpless parents of a deceased employee of the State Government whose income is below certain level. This intention is discernible from the memorandum and it does not run contrary to what is stated above. While the State Government may not accord sanction for payment of family pension for the period prior to 1.1.99, there appears to be no bar in granting such relief with effect from the date when the memorandum was brought into force i.e. on 1.1.99.

I, therefore, come to the conclusion that the writ Petitioners in the instant case will be entitled to family pension as per the aforesaid scheme with effect from 1.1.99 although their son Chandan Pal died before the scheme was " brought into force as there is no dispute to the fact that they were fully dependent on the deceased Chandan Pal.

With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.