Tripura High Court
Sri Gouranga Dhar vs The State Of Tripura & Others on 13 February, 2020
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.748 of 2019
Sri Gouranga Dhar
........Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Tripura & others
........Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Advocate, Mr. Rajib Saha, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Biswanath Majumder, CGC.
Mr. H. Sarkar, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
-O-R-D-E-R-
13/02/2020 Petitioner has made following prayers :
"(i) Issue Rule NISI;
(ii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the State Respondents or each one of them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus shall not be issued directing/commanding the State Respondents to extend the benefit of the family pension to the petitioner;
(iii) And as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not been issued upon the Respondents directing, mandating the State respondent to carry out fresh commutation of the Pensionary benefit of the writ petitioner taking into consideration of the Finance Department Memorandum No.F.8(7)-Fin(G)/88(2), dated 30-09-1988 (Annexure-2) and also the Memorandum of the Finance Department No.F.8(14)-FIN(G)/86 dated 11th March, 1987 (Annexure-4) as well as keeping in view of the circular dated 8th April, 1976 issued by the Government of India, Department of Expenditure as adopted in Tripura (Annexure-5); Page 2 of 4
(iv) Issue Rule calling upon the respondents or each one of them as to why a Writ of Mandamus shall not be issued treating the Petitioner's status as Pensioner under the Government of Tripura be restored after completion of 15 years period of retirement from his service."
The petitioner was employed in State Government service. He was absorbed in Rural Electrification Corporation (RECL, for short) in the year 1985. Rule 37 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which are adopted by the State Government provides that the Government servant who has been permitted to be absorbed in a service or post in or under a Corporation or Company wholly or substantially owned or controlled or financed by the Government shall if such absorption is declared by the Government in public interest, be deemed to have retired from service from the date of such absorption and would be eligible to receive retiral benefit which he may have elected and from such date as may be determined. Rule 37-A of the said Rule prescribes for payment of lump sum amount to retired Government employee on absorption in or under a Corporation or Company.
At the relevant time as per the reply of the respondents these Rules also provided that such a Government servant would have an alternative of receiving death cum retirement gratuity in view of pension in addition to the DCRG which will include (a) on his application a lump sum amount not exceeding the commuted value of 1/3rd of his pension (b) a terminal benefit equal to twice the amount of lump sum amount referred to in Clause-A subject to the condition that the Government servant surrenders the Page 3 of 4 right to draw 2/3rd of his pension. Along with the affidavit the respondents have produced a copy of an undertaking dated 20th May, 1987 given by the petitioner stating that "I Sri Gouranga Dhar, hereby submit the following undertaking for purpose of commutation of two-third of pension on absorption in REC Ltd. in addition to commutation of one third of pension. 1. That I opt for a lump sum amount in lieu of pension. 2. That I hereby surrender my right of drawing two third of my pension i) from the date of payment of terminal benefits equal of the commuted value of the balance amount of pension left after commuting one third of pension to be worked out with reference to the commutation tables obtaining on the date from which the commuted value becomes payable or ii) from the date as per rules."
Once the petitioner had thus at the time of his absorption in the Corporation and deemed retirement from Government service not only received 1/3rd amount of commuted value of pension but also received further lump sum in view of remaining 2/3rd amount of pension, he can thereafter have no further claim of pensionary benefits from the Government. Quite apart from this, all these events happened in the year 1985-87. The petitioner has filed in the year 2019 which is even otherwise hopelessly belated.
In the result, petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(AKIL KURESHI), CJ Page 4 of 4 Dipesh