#Tripura High Court

Tripura High Court ruled that an 18-month Diploma in Elementary Education completed through NIOS satisfies the eligibility criteria for the Tripura Teacher Eligibility Test 2024, ordering the issuance of the certificate and the petitioner’s consideration for appointment. The decision overrides the prospectus’s two-year diploma requirement, widening eligibility for ODL candidates in future TET recruitments.

The Tripura High Court ordered the State to release the widow's statutory family pension and grant a compassionate appointment to the deceased fireman's daughter, rejecting the claim that the deceased's loan liability could offset post-death benefits. This ruling secures full entitlement for dependents of government employees killed in service.

Tripura High Court rules that disciplinary authorities cannot revisit charges already exonerated by a judicial order, reinforcing the binding nature of judicial findings on administrative proceedings. The decision underscores the principle of finality and res judicata in service law, protecting employees from repeated disciplinary actions on the same grounds.

Tripura High Court sets Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 5,000 as fixed monthly maintenance for wife and minor daughter, respectively, rejecting the trial court's 50% salary deduction as disproportionate. The ruling reinforces the Rajnesh v. Neha principle that maintenance must align with the husband's actual financial capacity, not arbitrary salary deductions.

Tripura High Court rules that a divorced daughter is not entitled to family pension under the Revised Pension Rules 2017 if the divorce occurred after the pensioner's death. The eligibility hinges on the marital status existing at the time of the pensioner's demise, reinforcing strict statutory interpretation for pension benefits.

Tripura High Court rules that government employees are entitled to medical reimbursement for emergency treatment in empanelled hospitals without prior referral, prioritizing the factum of treatment over procedural formalities. The judgment underscores that denial of reimbursement solely on technical grounds violates the right to health and service benefits.