HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WP(C) 97 of 2025 Smt. Mina Rani Das ……Petitioner(s) Versus State of Tripura and others .......Respondent(s) For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Advocate Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. K. Nath, Advocate Ms. S. Deb Barman, Advocate Ms. A. Debbarma, Advocate Mr. D. Paul, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharya, G.A. Mr. K. De, Addl. G.A. Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. Saha, Advocate Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment & order : 07.04.2025. Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No __ HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD J U D G M E N T & O R D E R(ORAL) Heard learned counsel for the parties. [2] This present petition is filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs: “i) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to sanction & release family pension in favour of the Petitioner upon death of the pensioner i.e. deceased Nidan Chandra Das who was drawing pension vide PPO No- Pen-3/TRIP/S/SUP/5644 upon retirement from State Govt. Employment. ii) Issue Rule upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or order/orders and/or direction/directions of like nature shall not be issued whereby directing the Respondents to Quash and cancel the letter, dated, 26.07 2024 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer. iii) Make the rules absolute. iv) Call for records.................” [3] When the case is called, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the case of the petitioner seeking pension is pending with the respondents and there are inter-departmental correspondences made between one respondent and another. [4] Mr. K. De, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the State- respondents, upon instructions, submits before this Court that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is incorrect as the petitioner is already getting pension and the petitioner is seeking further pension from the Central Government to which, she is not entitled to. [5] At this juncture, it is not for this Court to draw an opinion with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the matter is disposed of directing the concerned respondent-authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner, if at all, is pending with the respondents in accordance with law within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. [6] With the above observations and directions, the instant petition is hereby disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any, shall also stand closed. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J Sabyasachi G. SABYASACHI GHOSH Digitally signed by SABYASACHI GHOSH Date: 2025.04.10 14:39:35 +05'30'