Introduction
A writ petition has been filed by the wife of Late Bishnu Debbarma, regarding the modified rate and financial benefit of pension formed by the Tripura Government.
Facts of the case
The husband of the petitioner was operating as the Animal Resource Development Officer. After his retirement, he had been drawing the standard annuity according to the rules but he passed away on 01.08.2002. After his death, the petitioner being his legitimately hitched spouse began accepting the family benefits. As per the solicitor, the State Bank of India-respondents has pitiably neglected to give the advantage of revised pension as amended by the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2009 and under the corrected standard of Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pension) Rules, 2012.
Arguments made on behalf of the petitioner
Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has decently presented that the candidate got all the advantages of the ensuing revised principles by Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pension] [4th Amendment] Rules, 2015, Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pension] Rules, 2017 and Tripura State Civil Services [Revised Pension] Rules, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharjee learned counsel has further submitted that by the Amendment Rules, 2009 which happened from 01.01.2006, the applicant was qualified for essential annuity +74% DR over his essential benefits + 35% supporter over essential benefits. The complete gathered together to the following difference of 10. Additionally, she was qualified for fundamental benefits [without merger] and 86% DR [without merger] regarding the Amendment Rules, 2012 which had become effective from 01.06.2006.
Arguments made on behalf of the Respondents
Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel, showing up for the respondents had presented that the said figure is wrong, as the petitioner has not raised any discussion concerning the execution of fourth Amendment Rules, 2015 and the changed rules became effective accordingly. The contention is limited to those revisions consolidated in the Tripura State Civil Services Rules proclaimed before the fourth Amendment Rules, 2015. Furthermore, the learned counsel stated that the guideline of the annuity has been unmistakably given in Annexure-R/2 to the answer recorded by the bank respondents demonstrating each month’s annuity from 01.11.2007 onwards. At long last, Mr. Saha, learned counsel, has alluded to the letter routed to him by the State Bank of India-respondents on 04.12.2020.
The decision of the court
After a thorough review of the evidence presented and arguments made the court stated that the petitioner isn’t qualified for any monetary advantage before her retirement and consequently dismissed the petition.
Click here to view the judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
