Tripura High Court has directed the state government to release family pension to a deceased fire services employee’s widow and provide compassionate appointment to his daughter within four months, ruling that outstanding liabilities of the deceased cannot be a legal ground to withhold family pension.
The Tripura High Court has directed the state government to release family pension to the widow of a deceased Fire and Emergency Services employee and provide compassionate appointment to his daughter within four months. The court made it clear that outstanding liabilities left by the deceased employee cannot be used as a ground to withhold family pension.
A single bench headed by Justice Biswajit Palit passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by Moushumi Das and her daughter Eshika Das. Moushumi is the widow of Prasenjit Das, who died in harness on December 20, 2024, while serving as a Leading Fireman under the Fire and Emergency Services Department of the Tripura government.
The petitioners had approached the High Court seeking compassionate appointment for Eshika under the state’s Die-in-Harness Scheme, along with the release of family pension and other post-death financial benefits. They submitted that despite making representations and providing the necessary documents, the authorities had neither taken a final decision on Eshika’s appointment nor released the family pension.
During the proceedings, the state government acknowledged that Eshika was eligible for appointment under the Die-in-Harness Scheme. According to the government’s submission, she had submitted her representation on March 17, 2025. The Director of Fire and Emergency Services subsequently forwarded a proposal for her appointment to the authorities on July 7, 2025.
However, the Finance Department informed the authorities that there was no vacant post available in the Fire and Emergency Services Department. It advised that the appointment proposal could be forwarded when a vacancy became available. Alternatively, if no vacancy arose within one year, the case could be sponsored for appointment in a suitable government department.
The High Court observed that the records clearly indicated that the authorities had initiated steps towards providing compassionate employment to Eshika. However, she had not been appointed within the period contemplated under the applicable scheme.
The court noted that the Die-in-Harness Scheme envisaged appointment within one year of the death of a government employee. Since the petitioners had already submitted the required representation, the court found that the authorities had failed to provide compassionate appointment within the stipulated period.
The issue of family pension also came under specific scrutiny. The court observed that there was no legal basis for withholding family pension merely because the deceased employee had outstanding liabilities. It stated that “for outstanding liability of the deceased there is no scope as per law to withhold the family pension,” pointing to an apparent misconception among the departmental authorities regarding the release of the benefit.
The state government informed the court that financial benefits amounting to Rs 9,15,053 had already been released to Moushumi. These included gratuity, GPF final payment, link insurance and provisional pension. However, leave salary and benefits under the Group Insurance Scheme had been temporarily withheld due to outstanding liabilities.
The High Court further observed that the absence of a suitable vacancy in the Fire and Emergency Services Department should not prevent consideration of Eshika’s compassionate appointment. Since her eligibility was not disputed, the authorities could consider appointing or engaging her in another suitable government department in accordance with the applicable state guidelines.
| Also Read: Tripura Govt to Bear 100% of Enhanced Power Tariff Through Subsidy: Ratan |
Ultimately, the High Court directed the respondents to release the family pension to the petitioners according to their eligibility and provide compassionate appointment to Eshika within four months.
The ruling underscores that outstanding financial liabilities of a deceased government employee cannot, by themselves, become a legal impediment to the family’s entitlement to family pension.
