HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA WA NO.23 OF 2026 Smt. Ajita Tripura (Debbarma), W/o- Lt. Rabindra Debbarma, D/o- Lt. Shyama Charan Tripura, Of Ward No-14. B.K. Road, Ganesh Thakur Lane, Near Bijoy Kumar School, Krishnanagar, P.S.- West Agartala, District-West Tripura, Tripura-799001. [Petitioner in W.P(C) No.24 of 2025] Vs. 1. The State of Tripura, to be represented by Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Tripura, New Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, Kunjaban, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799010. 2. The Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, Office Lane, Agartala, West Tripura, Pin-799001. 3. The District Education Officer, West District Zonal Office, Agartala, Tripura, Pin-799006. ……..Respondent(s) [Respondents in W.P(C) No.24 of 2025] HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA Present: For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.N. Majumder, Sr. Advocate. Mr. E. Debbarma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A. 11.03.2026 FINAL ORDER 1. This present writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court. Page 2 of 4 2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant-petitioner, a Group-B Government employee serving as the Headmistress at R.K. Ganj High School, IS Dukli, West Tripura, under the Department of Secondary Education, Government of Tripura, sought urgent relief regarding the rejection of her medical reimbursement claim of Rs. 14,60,400/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Sixty Thousand Four Hundred Only) and travel allowance of Rs. 34,357/- (Rupees Thirty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Fifty-Seven Only) by the Respondents, which were incurred during the medical treatment of her dependent son at Apollo Hospital, Kolkata. Her dependent son, namely Shri Salka Debbarma, aged 28 years, has been suffering from chronic liver disease with upper G.I. bleeding and urgently required a liver transplantation. Despite an ex post facto referral for treatment outside the State, which was countersigned by the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura, the Chairman of the State Referral Board, AGMC & GBP Hospital, and an authorized medical officer from the same department, the reimbursement claim was rejected by Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the son had exceeded the dependency age limit of 25 years under the medical rules. 3. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant herein approached this Hon’ble Court by way of a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2025, which came to be dismissed by the Hon’ble Single Judge on the ground that the appellant-petitioner failed to satisfy this Hon’ble Court by producing any extant rule of the State showing that the son of the appellant-petitioner, aged about 28 years, would be entitled to medical coverage. Being further aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present appeal challenging the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and seeking a direction upon the Respondents to release the claimed amount in order to protect the constitutional rights of the Appellant as well as her dependent son. Page 3 of 4 4. Hence, the present writ appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 24 of 2025. 5. Heard Mr. Elembrok Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned G.A., appearing for the State-respondents. 6. Mr. E. Debbarma, learned counsel submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge failed to appreciate that the CS (MA) Rules, 1944, as adopted by the State of Tripura vide Memorandum dated 16.11.1982, do not contain any definition of “family” nor prescribe any age limitation for dependent family members for the purpose of medical reimbursement. It is further submitted that the age restriction for dependent family members under the CGHS and the CS (MA) Rules was introduced only subsequently through office memoranda and executive instructions of the Central Government, particularly from 31.12.1993 onwards, and such restrictions were not part of the original Rules adopted by the State of Tripura. The appellant-counsel further submits that the State of Tripura has never adopted any age limitation for dependent family members and therefore the appellant is entitled to medical reimbursement for her dependent son under the Memorandum dated 22.12.2022, and prays that the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, learned G.A., submits since the State of Tripura has adopted the Central Services Medical Attendance Rule 1944 by memorandum dated 16.11.1982 which excludes the entitlement of the son of the present petitioner being aged about 28 years at the time of filing the writ petition, so, clause (a) of memo dated 22.12.2022 would not attract the case of the present appellant-petitioner. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also carefully perused the materials available on record including the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 24 of 2025. 9. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and the records placed before this Court, we find that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the facts of the case as well as the relevant rules governing medical reimbursement. The learned Single Judge has also correctly observed that the appellant failed to demonstrate any extant statutory rule of the State of Tripura which would entitle a dependent son aged above 25 years to medical coverage under the applicable medical attendance rules. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned Judgment and Order warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands dismissed and the Judgment and Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 24 of 2025 is hereby affirmed. 12. As a sequel, pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA, J DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD, J suhanjit RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SINGHA Digitally signed by RAJKUMAR SUHANJIT SINGHA Date: 2026.03.13 16:19:37 +05'30'