Tripura HC Directs TTAADC to Look Into Provisional Pension of Retired Employee, Lists Matter for June
The High Court of Tripura has asked the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council to examine the provisional pension of one petitioner while granting respondents time to file a counter affidavit.
The High Court of Tripura, in a brief interim order passed on 22 May 2026, directed the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) and its co-respondents to examine the release of provisional pension due to one of the petitioners in the writ petition. Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, sitting singly at Agartala, also granted the respondents time to file a counter affidavit, making it clear that the affidavit must be placed on record by the next date without fail. The matter has been listed for 18 June 2026.
The Dispute Before the Court
The writ petition, filed as WP(C) No. 243 of 2026, was brought by Harikanta Debbarma and several other petitioners against the TTAADC and connected respondents. The petitioners are former employees of the Council who retired approximately two years before the filing of the petition.
Senior Advocate Mr. P. Roy Barman, leading Ms. Pallavi Debbarma for the petitioners, placed two distinct grievances before the court. First, Petitioner No. 9 had not received provisional pension following retirement. Second, the remaining petitioners had not been paid post-retiral benefits, specifically gratuity and leave encashment, despite having retired two years ago.
Counsel for the petitioners pressed for expeditious hearing, pointing to the two-year delay in settling these dues.
Respondents' Position and the Court's Interim Direction
Advocate Mr. Aman Kr. Reang appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and accepted notice on their behalf. Advocate Mr. Agniva Chakraborty appeared and accepted notice for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Counsel for the respondents sought time to file a counter affidavit and did not address the merits at this stage.
Justice Datta Purkayastha allowed the time sought but imposed a condition: the counter affidavit must be filed by the next date “positively.” On the specific question of provisional pension for Petitioner No. 9, the court directed the respondents to “look into the matter” in the meantime, without issuing a formal mandamus at this stage.
The direction to look into the provisional pension, though interim in character, signals that the court expects the TTAADC to take some administrative steps before the next hearing rather than simply await the next date.
Outcome
The court listed the matter for 18 June 2026. The respondents are required to file their counter affidavit by that date. On the question of provisional pension for Petitioner No. 9, the TTAADC and co-respondents have been asked to examine the matter in the intervening period. The broader claims of gratuity and leave encashment for the other petitioners will be taken up when the matter is heard on merits.