A missing government employee's family is entitled to pensions and benefits, even if disciplinary actions were taken during his absence, under certain statutory provisions.

ORDER

By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J).

The applicant is aggrieved that she has not been paid retiral dues and family pension of her missing father. She is also seeking direction to the respondents to provide her appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant is further challenging the order of removal of her father.

2. The applicant has sought for the following reliefs in this Original Application:

“8.1 That, this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the applicant.

8.2 That, this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A/12), in the interest of justice.

8.3 That, this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to disburse the settlement amount, family pension and other monetary benefits in favour of the applicant and also to provide compassionate appointment to the applicant, in accordance with law.

8.4 That, this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.5 That, this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to award/grant cost of the application to the applicant.

8.6 That, this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned termination memorandum w.e.f.27/03/2006 (part of Annexure A/15) in the interest of justice.”

3. The applicant has stated in her Original Application that her father was an employee of the respondent department, who is missing since 15.04.2004. Missing compliant of her father was lodged at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur on 23.01.2005, which was registered as missing person No.03/05.

3.1 The applicant and her family members preferred a Civil Suit No.118- A/2014 before the First Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur (C.G.) to declare Shri Mohan Singh dead, which was dismissed on the ground that the family members could not file any document establishing their relation with Mohan Singh.

3.2 Against the order dated 29.07.2015, the family members preferred First Appeal No.3-A/2016 before the 9^th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), which was also dismissed on 22.07.2016 (Annexure A-3) on the ground that person cannot be declared dead by the Civil Court, it can only be presumed under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act . Thereafter, Second Appeal No.594/2019 was preferred before the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which was withdrawn on 03.09.2019 (Annexure A-4) with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

3.3 The Municipal Corporation, Raipur has issued a family succession certificate (Annexure A-5) in favour of the applicant and her family members stating that Mohan Singh is missing/trackless since 15.04.2004 and his dependents are entitled for the monetary benefits.

3.4 Siblings of the applicant got married meanwhile and are residing separately from the applicant. During the pendency of this Original Application, mother of the applicant had left for her heavenly abode and, therefore, now the applicant, being unmarried daughter is legally entitled to get the relief, as sought for in this Original Application.

3.5 Earlier, the applicant had preferred an Original Application No.203/871/2021 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2021 (Annexure A-10) with a direction to the respondents to decide the applicant’s representation within two months. In response, vide communication dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A-12), the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant stating that in the absence of the specific orders of the Court of law, the settlement dues of Shri Mohan Singh cannot be processed. It has also