Allowed

Malina Das Debbarma v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Tripura HC15 Jun 2017WP(C)/859/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the distribution of death gratuity, family pension, and other benefits of a deceased government employee. The Court held that while the widow was not eligible due to the invalidity of her marriage, the petitioners were entitled as the deceased's legitimate children. The Court directed the distribution of benefits among seven shares.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to issue separate Pension Payment Orders and remit one-seventh share of withdrawn benefits to the petitioners within four months.

Malina Das Debbarma Vs the State of Tripura and… — Succession and Inheritance | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

WP(C) 859 of 2016

¶3

Smt. Malina Das (Debbarma), W/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma

¶4

Miss Aruna Debbarma, D/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma

¶5

Miss Sharmila Debbarma, D/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma

¶6

Master Biswajit Debbarma, S/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma All are residents of C/o Ajit Das of Abhoynagar, P.O. Abhoynagar, District-West Tripura, Agartala, PIN-799005 and the petitioner Nos.2,3,4 being minor are represented by their mother and natural guardian Smt. Malina Das (Debbarma), i.e. Petitioner No.1. ………… Petitioners - Vs –

¶7

The State of Tripura, represented by Secretary, Department of Fisheries, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Complex, P.O. Secretariat, PIN-799010, Agartala, West Tripura.

¶8

The Director, Directorate of Fisheries, Government of Tripura, Pandit Nehru Complex, Gorkhabasti, Agartala, Tripura (West), PIN-799006.

¶9

The Superintendent of Fisheries, Fishery Office, College Tilla Sadar, Agartala, P.O. Agartala College, PIN-799004.

¶10

The Accountant General, O/O The Accountant General (A&E), P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. New Capital Complex, District-West Tripura.

¶11

WP(C)859/2016

¶12

Page 1 of 6

¶13

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Sub-Division, Agartala, West Tripura.

¶14

Smt. Mira Das (Debbarma), W/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma

¶15

Shri Raja Debbarma, S/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma

¶16

Smt. Chandra Debbarma, D/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma

¶17

Shri Mukesh Debbarma, S/o Lt. Dripal Debbarma All are residents of Vill-Jogendranagar, P.O. Jogendranagar, PIN-799004, P.S. East Agartala, District-West Tripura.

¶18

………..Respondents.

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶21

For the petitioner : Mr. RKP Singh Advocate For the respondents 1-3&5 : Ms AS Lodh, Addl. GA For the respondent No.4 : Mr. H Deb, Asst. SG For the respondents 6-9 : Ms S Deb Gupta, Advocate Date of hearing and delivery of order : 15.06.2017. Whether fit for reporting : No.

¶22

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶23

Heard Mr. RKP Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA for the respondents No.1-3&5, Mr. H Deb, learned Asst. SG for the respondent No.4 and Ms S Deb Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents No. 6-9.

¶24

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have urged this Court to direct the State respondents to pay the equal share of Death cum Retiral Gratuity (DCRG), leave salary, group insurance proceeds, the proceeds under the GPF and family pension to the petitioners, receivable for death of Dripal Debbarma, Fishery Officer, who was working under the

¶25

WP(C)859/2016

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

Department of Fisheries, Government of Tripura. They have further urged to direct the respondent No.6 to pay the shares of the petitioners in the amount of Rs.70,692 as received by her as encashment of leave, Rs.3,00,000/- as gratuity and further to direct the respondent No.2 to cancel the survival certificate dated 19.05.2014 under No. SDM/Sadar/SRVC/201430070001701 and issue a fresh survival certificate in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners have also urged to prohibit the official respondents from disbursing any further amount to the respondent No.6 or her children for purpose of adjustment.

¶28

3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondent No.6 is the first wife of said Dripal Debbarma. Dripal Debbarma died on 23.12.2013. In consideration of his service as rendered, his legitimate wife was entitled to get family pension under Section 54 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 as adopted in the State of Tripura. But the petitioners have stated that the deceased employee had a strained relation with the respondent No.6 and she was thrown out of the home by the respondent No.6. Dripal Debbarma started living with the petitioner No.1 after marriage was solemnized between them as per Hindu rites and customs in presence of the relatives about 18 years before the death of the said employee at Kamalpur. In the wedlock, the petitioners No. 2,3&4 were born and they are all now minor.

¶29

4. It is also asserted that at one point of time since the said employee was not maintaining the petitioners, the petitioners approached the Family Court for having maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. The said petition was registered as Misc.110/2007. By the order dated 08.08.2007 passed by the Family Court the said employee was directed to pay

¶30

WP(C)859/2016

¶31

Page 3 of 6

¶32

Rs.2,000/- per month in aggregate [Rs.500/- each for the petitioners]. The said employee continued to pay the said maintenance till his death on 23.12.2013 and the said maintenance was deducted from his salary by the Drawings and Disbursing Officer.

¶33

5. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners filed a petition for enhancement of the said maintenance by filing a petition under Section 127 CrPC being Misc. No. 427/2011 but before the said proceedings could be taken to its logical end, the said employee died and as such that petition became inconclusive and closed. However, Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel has pointed out that in the said proceeding the said employee filed one objection denying the marriage with the petitioner No.1. She has also pointed out that from perusal of the order passed by the Family court granting maintenance it would be apparent that in that proceeding, for whatever reason, the said employee did not participate and it went ex parte . After death of the said employee serious dispute has cropped up between the respondents No.6-9 and the present petitioners, in respect of their entitlement emerged out of his service as a Fishery Officer and owing to his death.

¶34

6. It is also admitted that as Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA has confirmed that the respondent No.6 on the strength of the nomination filed by the deceased employee has withdrawn an amount of Rs.70,692/- as encashment of leave and Rs.3,00,000/- as the gratuity. It is also not in dispute that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Sub-Division has issued one survival certificate on 19.05.2014 without including the petitioners in the said survival certificate.

¶35

WP(C)859/2016

¶36

Page 4 of 6

¶37

7. Fundamentally, the dispute is between the petitioners and the respondents No. 6-9 over the legacy of the deceased employee. From the records, including the order of maintenance dated 08.08.2007 delivered in Misc. Case No. 110/2007 (Anenxure-1 to the writ petition) and the birth certificate which are pre-dated to the death of the employee, Ms Deb Gupta, learned counsel has submitted that the respondents No. 7,8&9 are now adults and they cannot have any claim over the pension. Only the respondent No.6 is entitled to get the pension and none of the petitioners. In support of her contention she has referred to the Survival Certificate which according to her was issued on due inquiry. Furthermore, she has referred to the written objection filed by the deceased employee in Misc. 427/2011.

¶38

8. This Court has scrutinized the said objection but no statement in the said objection has been made denying the status of the petitioners No.2,3&4 herein as his own children. However, the marriage with the petitioner No.1 was denied.

¶39

9. Apparently, the dispute is regarding the succession and there is a serious dispute in this matter. But this Court is satisfied that the marriage of the petitioner No.1 with the deceased employee is illegitimate as the said marriage is admittedly solemnized in the subsistence of the previous marriage. As such, the petitioner No.1 cannot get any pension on account of death of the deceased employee. But the children from the illegitimate marriage are the successors of the deceased employee. They cannot be denied their right to have the pension because they are minors. They are also entitled to get the share of other retiral benefits that have accrued on the death of the deceased employee. Since a substantive amount has

¶40

WP(C)859/2016

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

been drawn by the respondent No.6, as stated earlier, on the strength of the nomination she is the mere custodian of the said money and she owes an obligation to distribute the share equally to all the legitimate successors equally.

¶43

10. Having observed thus, the respondents No.1,2&5 are directed to issue the Pension Payment Orders separately in favour of the respondent No.6 and the petitioners No. 2,3&4 by allocating prorate family pension that would accrue for death of the deceased employee. That apart, the other benefits at the time of disbursing shall be divided in seven parts, for seven shares and one share shall go to the petitioners No.2,3&4 each and the other shall be disbursed to the respondents No.6,7,8&9. The respondent No.6 is directed to make seven shares of the amount she has already drawn and remit one share each to the petitioners No.2,3&4 within a period of 04 (four) months from today. If such payment is not made, the said petitioners No.2,3,&4 through their natural guardian and mother would be entitled to take proper legal action against her.

¶44

11. It is made further clear that when the petitioners No. 2,3,&4 would attain disqualifying age then the entire pension shall be disbursed to the respondent No.6 by revision of the Pension Payment Order. Such action shall be taken strictly as per law.

¶45

12. With these observation and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

13. Copy of this order be furnished to Ms AS Lodh, learned Addl. GA and Mr. H Deb, learned Asst. SG for onward transmission.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

WP(C)859/2016

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Malina Das Debbarma v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malina Das Debbarma v. the State of Tripura and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramode Ch. Saha and 45 Ors. Vs State of Tripura and 2 Ors.

Union Of India Vs Birendra Debnath and 2 Ors.

Sandhya Rani Sarkar Vs In-charge,hr-er, O.n.g.c.

Pradip Debbarma Vs Narendra Paul and Anr.

The National Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Swapna Deb Laskar and Ors.

Subhash Ch. Datta Vs Union of India and Ors.