D.C. ROY Vs. N. CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. Chowdhury, learned G.A., appearing for the State-respondents as well as Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-TTAADC.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the following reliefs:-

(3.) Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner originally was the employee under the State-respondents i.e., respondents No.1, 2 & 3. Learned counsel further submits that he was sent on deputation to the Office of the Chief Executive Officer, Tripura Tribal Area Autonomous District Council, i.e., the Office of the respondents No.4 to 9, w.e.f. 18.04.2008. During his tenure on deputation under respondents No.4 to 9, the father of the petitioner died on 25.06.2018 (Annnxure-A to the writ petition). But, it is the grievance of the petitioner that she has not received any financial benefit out of the service of her father which she is entitled to get under the CCS (Pension) Rules as well as the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Die-in-Harness scheme adapted by the State of Tripura.