Family pension cannot be withheld to recover liabilities of the deceased employee.

Prasenjit Das, serving as a Leading Fireman in the Fire & Emergency Services Department, Government of Tripura, died in harness on 20.12.2024 at the age of approximately 43 years, leaving behind his wife, daughter, and mother as legal heirs.

His daughter, Eshika Das, applied for compassionate appointment under the State’s Die-in-Harness Scheme, and the other family members furnished their no-objection certificates. The petitioners submitted a representation dated 17.03.2025, but no appointment was made.

The Director of Fire & Emergency Services forwarded the proposal for compassionate appointment on 07.07.2025. The Finance Department subsequently stated that, as there was no vacancy in the parent department, the proposal could be forwarded when a vacancy arose, or, if no vacancy arose within one year, the candidate could be sponsored for a suitable post in another department.

The State admitted that petitioner No. 2 was eligible under the Die-in-Harness Scheme.

The petitioners also sought family pension and other post-death service benefits. The respondents contended that substantial benefits amounting to ₹9,15,053 had already been paid, but certain benefits were withheld because of outstanding loan liabilities and the petitioner’s undertaking to clear those dues.

Whether petitioner No. 2 was entitled to consideration and appointment under the State’s Die-in-Harness Scheme despite the absence of a vacancy in the deceased employee’s parent department

Whether the respondents could withhold family pension and other eligible post-death benefits on the ground of outstanding loan liabilities of the deceased employee

The Court applied the Tripura Government’s Die-in-Harness Scheme contained in Notification dated 02.03.2019. Under Clause 3.6(i), where an eligible candidate is not appointed in the parent department within one year because of non-availability of a vacancy, the candidate may be considered for appointment in another department with the concurrence of the Finance Department.

The Court also relied on the governing pension rules, including the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and the principle that family pension is a statutory entitlement arising under the applicable service rules and cannot be withheld merely to recover the deceased employee’s personal loan liabilities.

The Court found that the respondents had accepted petitioner No. 2’s eligibility and had processed her application, but had failed to complete the appointment process within the one-year period contemplated by the Scheme.

The absence of a vacancy in the Fire & Emergency Services Department did not justify indefinite delay because Clause 3.6(i) permitted consideration of appointment in another suitable department with Finance Department concurrence.

On the pension issue, the Court held that the deceased’s outstanding loan liability could not lawfully be used to withhold the petitioners’ family pension, which was payable according to their eligibility under the applicable pension rules.

Although certain terminal benefits had already been released, the respondents’ continued withholding of family pension on the stated ground reflected a misconception of law.

The respondents were directed to release family pension to the eligible petitioners within four months from the date of judgment. They were also directed to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner No. 2 within the same period, including by considering her appointment in another suitable Government department if no post was available in the Fire & Emergency Services Department.

The writ petition and any pending application were accordingly disposed of.