Proceedings against a deceased employee are abated upon their death, which necessitates the release of retiral benefits and family pension to the legal heirs.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. Instruction provided in Court be kept in record.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“In the aforesaid circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue a RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed and if the Opposite Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule may be made absolute and on hearing the parties through their counsel, this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to:-

i) Issue appropriate Writ/Writs in holding that the actions of the Opp. Parties in not closing the Departmental Proceeding drawn vide Order No. CE.60/2001-15166 dated 31.03.2003 in view of the Guidelines of the G.A Department No. 19806 dated. 21.08.2012 under Annexure-7 is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable & direct the Opp. Parties to close the same.

ii) This Hon’ble Court further be pleased to issue nature of appropriate writ/writs in the mandamus directing the Opp. Parties to release the retiral benefits of the Husband of the Petitioner who died on 07.09.2020 and to grant the final family pension as per the OCS Pension Rules, 1992 along with interest & all consequential service benefits in her favour within a stipulated period.

iii) This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass such other appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions, order/orders as would be deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner.

And for which act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee, contended that while in service the proceeding in question was initiated against the deceased employee vide memorandum dtd.31.03.2003. It is contended that in the said proceeding prior to passing of the final order in accordance with law, the deceased employee died on 07.09.2020.

4.1. However, on such death of the deceased employee on 07.09.2020, when the proceeding was never dropped and the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee was not released along with family pension, the present writ petition was filed inter alia with the aforesaid prayer.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since during pendency of the proceeding the deceased employee died on 07.09.2020, the proceeding should have been dropped having been abated. In support of his submission reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of A.K.S. Rathore (Dead) through LRs Vs. Union of India & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7028 of 2022) decided on 28.09.2022. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 7, 8 & 9 of the decision has taken the following view:-

“7. Admittedly, no final order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, before the death of the original appellant. Though the order of remand passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is dated 02.02.2015, the Disciplinary Authority could not perhaps pass the final order, due to the pendency of the writ petition before the High Court and the pendency of the above appeal before this Court.

8. Today even if we dismiss the above appeal, no final order can be passed in the disciplinary proceedings, against a dead person. The disciplinary proceedings have actually abated. In other words the dismissal of the above appeal wi