Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12781
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M., Rajveer Singh Verma, J
Smt. Laxmi Devi – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway – Respondent
OA No. [Not Specified]
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri M.P. Dixit
For the Respondents: Mrs. P.R. Lakshmi, Addl. Sr. Standing Counsel
Removal on unauthorized absence invalid if employee presumed dead under law; rightful claims not forfeited due to FIR non-lodgment.
Headnote:In this case, the tribunal addressed the implications of an employee's long-term absence and the applicant's claims following her husband's status as missing, referencing Section 107 and Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The applicant challenged the removal order based on unauthorized absence, highlighting prior reports concerning her husband's status. The court found the removal order unsustainable and instructed the respondents to grant the applicant arrears and benefits. In reviewing claims of unauthorized absence and legal interpretations regarding presumed death under the Evidence Act, the court noted that non-lodging of an FIR does not negate the rightful claims. Consequently, the applicant's OA is allowed, and the respondent's objections are quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of missing employee's case and application for family benefits. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments concerning unauthorized absence and implications of prior reports. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's evaluation of evidence regarding employee's status and effect on claims. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. final ruling on the validity of removal order and entitlement to benefits. (Para 7) |
| 5. conclusion and directives by the court regarding the claims. (Para 8) |
ORDER
Per Kumar Rajesh Chandra, A.M. :-
Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
“(i) That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 10.11.2017 together with the un-communicated order of removal from service dated 19.06.2019 as referred therein in view of the orders as contained in Annexure-A/1, A/6 and reported in the case of Smt. Lagni Devi (Supra).
(ii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to grant/accord/pay the entire settlement dues including family pension and the benefit of compassionate appointment henceforth in view of the Railway Board’s Order dated 22.08.1991 (RBE No. 150 of 1991) and Patna reported Judgment rendered in the case of Lagni Devi (Supra). Bench
(iii) That your Lordships may further be pleased to direct/command the Respondents to pay the arrears towards the family pension along with statutory interest on the aforesaid amount of settlement dues from the date of missing of the husband of the Applicant till date of its actual payment.
(iv) Any other relief or reliefs including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the applicant.”
2. The brief facts of the case, as per the applicant, are as follows:-
(i) The husband of the applicant was a permanent Group ‘D ’ employee who was appointed sometime in the year 1990 under the respondents. Unfortunately, the husband of the applicant left his house for duty on 20.01.2007 but after that he neither returned home nor the railway authority ever intimated about his movement.
(ii) After knowing the missing of her husband the applicant approached the concerned railway authorities including police authorities and also submitted representation including information regarding missing of her husband and the very first letter issued by the office of SP, Gaya dated 08.11.2009 (Annexure-A/1) clearly speaks that
(iii) The applicant under RTI Act received reply dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure A/2) along with a report of the Officer-in-Charge Ali Nagar Police, District- Chandauli which shows that in spite of best efforts of the police her husband could not be located.
(iv) Getting no trace of her husband the applicant filed a Complaint Case No. 04 of 2014 before the learned Railway Magistrate, Gaya in which inquiry was conducted and report was submitted on 15.06.2016, but the police was unable to trace out her husband.
(v) Thereafter, the applicant submitted representation on 17.07.2017 (Annexure A/5) before the concerned respondents for payment of all settlement dues, family pension, compassionate appointment etc. treating her husband as dead after expiry of 7 years from the date of his missing in Patna view of Section 107 read with Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act . Bench (vi) In the meantime, the applicant was surprised to receive one order dated 10.11.2017 passed by respondent together with uncommunicated order dated 19.06.2009 whereunder the husband of the applicant has been stated to be removed from service vide order dated 19.06.2009 on the ground of unauthorized absence from 20.01.2007 and the applicant has been denied family pension including all other settlement dues and compassionate appointment solely on the ground that the applicant had lodged FIR regarding missing of her husband on 13.03.2016, i.e. much after the order so passed on 19.06.2009 which, according to the applicant, is not only false, far from truth but also against the orders/letters/reports issued by the concerned police authorities including
