Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 17617
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, J
K.Pugalenthi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA/310/00558/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s. R. Malaichamy
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Kishore Kumar, SPC
Entitlement to compassionate appointment arises when a government employee is missing for an extended period, invoking a presumption of death and aligning with established case law guiding such appointments.
Headnote:(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 108 - Compassionate appointment - Applicant sought appointment based on father's presumed death after 14 years of disappearance and previous dismissive orders by respondents - Court held the applicant entitled to the benefit under compassionate schemes as per settled precedents considering the notion of deemed death after prolonged absence. (Paras 26, 27)
(B) Removal from service - Procedure - Disciplinary action against a missing employee is legally contentious when the employee's absence is known and documented with FIRs - The court emphasized that benefits should be rendered to dependents in accordance with extant rules.
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to quash removal order against his father based on absence following health-related family crises and prolonged silence on his whereabouts leading to a non-traceable certificate being issued.
Findings of Court:
Court quashed both dismissal and rejection of compassionate appointment, directing processing of applicant's claims.
Issues: Legitimacy of removal and appointment for compassionate grounds in the context of missing employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court noted that a presumption of death warranted entitlement to benefits for families of long-missing persons, emphasizing the need to comply with relevant compassionate schemes, thus overturning the prior dismissive orders.
Result: OA allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the case concerning the applicant's father's disappearance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 6) |
| 2. details surrounding the disciplinary actions taken against the applicant's father. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. arguments regarding the legitimacy of removal under procedural circumstances. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 4. court's observations on compassionate appointment relating to missing government employees. (Para 20 , 21 , 26) |
| 5. final ruling directing respondents to allow compassionate appointment for the applicant. (Para 27 , 28) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member(J))
The applicant has filed this OA praying for setting aside the order of the 1stRespondent issued vide Memo No. E11/ROHSC/RKS/Dlgs dt. 05.06.2014 and memo No. B2/OA 743/2022 dt. 11.05.2024 and to direct the 1strespondent to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds on the ground of deemed death of his father as per the provisions of the Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , from the date of issue of non-traceable certificate dt. 30.03.2022 by the respondent no.2.
2. It is the case of the applicant that his father was working as Postman at Chennai. During 2009, the applicant’s mother met with fire accident in which she sustained burn injury all over her body and continues to live with grave physical and mental suffering even to this date. The applicant’s father was granted Rs. 1,85,000/- towards medical treatment of his wife and he was asked to submit discharge summary and other certificates on or before 10.04.2010 by the 1st respondent.
3. Vide letter dated 19.04.2013, the 1st respondent informed the applicant’s mother that her husband was granted medical allowance for her treatment which are due to be paid to the department and the letters sent to him were returned with remarks “left without instructions” and therefore, she was directed to inform the respondents if the applicant’s father was residing with them and if not, any police complaint has been lodged and if so, to submit a copy of FIR and the outcome of the complaint. In this regard, another letter dated 13.05.2013 was sent again by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, the applicant’s mother filed a complaint and FIR was registered on 09.04.2010 by the 2nd respondent police. The applicant’s mother informed the same to the 1st respondent.
4. The applicant’s mother submitted a representation dt. 20.05.2013 to the 1st respondent to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds since she is residing with her children in penury condition. In response, the 1st respondent vide letter dt. 21.09.2015, directed the applicant to submit report on the action taken on FIR lodged by the police authority.
5. Vide letter dated 12.10.2017, the 1st respondent informed the applicant’s mother that she cannot be given compassionate appointment as her husband has been removed from service vide order dt. 05.06.2014 and there is no provision to give compassionate appointment in cases where disciplinary action has been initiated resulting in removal from service. Despite request by applicant’s mother to serve a copy of the order dt. 05.06.2014, the same has not been served to the applicant or his mother till date. The applicant’s mother thereafter filed OA No. 718/2022 praying for grant of family pension. The 1st respondent filed reply on 05.06.2014 annexing therewith the order of removal dated 05.06.2014 as Annexure R-22. Hence, applicant’s mother withdrew OA No. 718/2022 with liberty to file a detailed representation to the competent authority and the same was allowed vide order dt. 14.06.2023.
6. After continued effort with the police authorities to trace the whereabouts of the applicant’s father and for issuance of certificate in this regard, the 2nd respondent issued the non-traceable certificate dt. 30.03.2022 with regard to missing complaint lodged on 09.04.2010 stating that whereabouts of the applicant’s father could not be traced till date and the case is still pending. After receipt of non-t
