AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
The applicant is the widow of one late Sh. Inder Singh, S/o Sh.Harkhyal Singh, who was engaged as a daily wager by the respondents - NDMC. His services were regularised w.e.f. 01.04.2003 in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200.
The applicant claimed that on 20.06.2012 her husband went to office but did not return home. She went to the office to check where she was advised that her husband did not attend the office on that day. She tried to make missing complaint at Police Station, Loni, however, her efforts were not successful. The family comprises of the applicant and her three minor sons.
The applicant eventually made a complaint to the District Magistrate and Superintendant of Police, Ghaziabad on 19.9.2013. Thereafter, missing person complaint was recorded on 31.10.2013. A public notice was also published thereafter in Rashtriya Dainik newspaper on 14.11.2013. However, her husband remained untraced.
She requested the respondent - NDMC on 15.1.2018 to consider grant of compassionate ground appointment for herself. She was advised to take are port from the Police Station In-Charge, Loni, Ghaziabad.
On her application, following remarks were recorded by Police Station, Loni, on 2.11.2018:
"श्रीमानजी,
आवेदिका के पति 31.10.2013 में गुम हो गये थे जो आपरातिक अतितनयम के अनुसार आज तक गुमशुगी से वापस नहीं लौटा है।"
Thereafter, she approached the respondents again to consider grant of compassionate ground appointment but she was advised to approach after completion of 7 years. The applicant pleads that 7 year time has since lapsed on 20.7.2019 w.r.t the date of missing as well as on 31.10.2020 with respect to the lodging of FIR on 31.10.2013.
She requested on 2.7.2019 for release of death-cum-retirement benefits and other consequential benefits to consider including for compassionate ground appointment. However, there was no response from the respondents, she sent a reminder on 12.02.2020. The reminder was also not responded to.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant OA has been preferred. Relief has been sought to direct the respondents to consider and pay retiral dues and other consequential benefits.
The applicant relies upon DOP&T & PW OM dated 29.8.1986. The relevant paras are reproduced asunder:
"2. The matter has been under consideration of the Government for some time as withholding of the benefits due to the family has been causing a great deal of hardship. It has been decided that (i) when an employee disappears leaving his family, the family can be paid in the first instance the amount of salary due, leave encashment due and the amount of GPF having regard to the nomination made by the employee, (ii) after the elapse of a period of one year, other benefits like retirement or death gratuity/family pension may also be granted to the family subject to the fulfilment of conditions prescribed in the succeeding paragraphs.
The above benefits may be sanctioned by the Administrative Ministry/Department after observing the following formalities:-
(i) The family must lodge a report with the concerned Police Station and obtain a report that the employee has not been traced after all efforts made by the police.
(ii) An Indemnity Bond should be taken from the nominee/dependants of the employee that all payments will be adjusted against the payments due to the employee in case he appears on the scene and makes any claim.
The Head of Office will assess all Government dues outstanding against the Government servant and effect their recovery in accordance with Rule 71 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and other instructions in force for effecting recovery of Government dues.
The family can apply to the Head of the Office of the Government servant for grant of family pension and death/retirement gratuity, after one year from the date of disappearance of the Government servant in accordance with the prescribed procedure for sanction of family pension and death/retirement gratuity. In case the disbursement of death/retirement gratuity is not effected within three months of the date of application, the interest shall be paid at the rates applicable and responsibility for the delay fixed."
The applicant also relies upon directions dated 14.3.2008 by Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in Smt. Banarasi Vs. GNCT of Delhi. The relevant part of the order reads as under:
One Bhagwan Singh was a constable in Delhi Police. He was posted in New Delhi Zone/ PCR. On 24.7.1996 he was detailed for duty at PCR Van V-25 from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. However he did not report for duty and was marked absent. Since then there has been no trace of him. Notice for absence was sent at his residential address directing him to resume duty, which was followed by registered notice. It was received back undelivered with the report that the addressee was not available at the address. Another notice sent through special messenger at the residence of his parents at Sikar, Rajasthan was refused by the mother of the said Bhagwan Singh as he was not found at his residence. Yet another notice was sent and again he was not found and his brother received the same.
xxx xxx xxx
The petitioner, who is the wife of Shri Bhagwan Singh, preferred a departmental appeal against the dismissal of her husband Bhagwan Singh. The said departmental appeal was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner of Police on 14.9.1999.
The petitioner filed Original Application No. 2471/2000 under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) seeking pensionary benefits. This OA was disposed of by the Tribunal on 10.8.2001 with the following directions:
"4. In the result, although the applicant has failed to make any claim for family pension in absence of challenge to the dismissal order which cannot be adjudicated by a Single Bench. The applicant is accorded liberty to challenge the same before the appropriate Bench in accordance with rules. However, the respondents are directed, in case applicant makes a representation under Rule 41 of the Pension Rules, to consider the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondents shall dispose of the same keeping in view of the indigent conditions of the family and the circumstances of the family and the circumstances within 8 weeks thereafter. The OA is disposed of accordingly."
xxx xxx xxx
We are, therefore, of the view that the claim of the petitioner made in the original application could not have been rejected while placing the entire responsibility of proving the demise of her husband, at the time when he was accused of remaining willfully and unauthorizedly absent, upon her shoulders. In view of the fact that Shri Bhagwan Singh was not residing with his family and was living away from his family in police barracks, when he went missing from the place of duty under the control of the respondents and did not go back to h is own house and his whereabouts could not even be traced, the charge of absence from duty, coupled with the fact that Sh. Bhagwan Singh has not been seen for all these years, cannot be treated as sustained in the facts and circumstances of this case. In fact, it was for the respondents to trace out the whereabouts of Sh. Bhagwan Singh if he was alive at the relevant time. The petitioner being a lay person cannot be fasten with this responsibility, who claims not to have seen her husband from the time when he went missing while on duty in Delhi.
In case the husband of the petitioner was dead when he went missing in 1996, it would be highly inequitable and unjust to the petitioner to deny her family pension. She would be doubly condemned. Firstly because of the death of her husband, and secondly because of the denial of family pension.
Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and allow this writ petition. The punishment of dismissal passed by the respondent against Sh. Bhagwan Singh is also set aside on the premises that Sh. Bhagwan Singh was dead and punishment of dismissal would not be appropriate. As a consequence, the petitioner shall be entitled to family pension and such other benefits as may be admissible to her under the rules. The arrears of pension and terminal benefits be paid to the petitioner within two months from today. The petitioner shall also continue to get the family pension regularly in future as per law."
The matter has been heard. Shri U.Srivastava, learned counsel represented the applicant. Shri Manjeet Singh Reen, learned counsel represented the respondents.
The respondents pleaded for time to submit their reply.
Matter has been considered. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal is of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the O.A pending.
Accordingly, the OA is disposed off at the admission stage itself, without going into merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents, to consider and decide the pending representation dated 2.7.2019 followed by a reminder dated 12.2.2020,by passing a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the extent rules and instructions on the subject, DOP&PW OM dated 29.10.1986 (Supra) and ratio of Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi judgment dated 14.03.2008 in Smt. Banarasi Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi And Ors. (supra), within a time period of 12 weeks, under advise to the applicant. After examination of the case, if certain payments become due, those shall also be released to the applicant within two weeks thereafter and break up advised to applicant.
The respondents are also directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate ground appointment, keeping in view the extant rules and instructions on the subject, within 18 weeks, and advise the applicant.
The applicant shall have liberty to approach the tribunal, if some grievance still subsists. No costs.