Ex parte dismissal of missing railway employee annulled under RBE 150/1991; treated as civil death after 34 years for pension benefits.

O R D E R

By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Basisht Tiwari, assisted by Ms. Pooja Mishra, learned counsels for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.

2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:

8.1 This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.10.2013 passed by the respondent-3.

(ii)this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to annulled the penalty against the husband of the applicant and pay her relevant benefits like leave encashment, salary dues, retirement benefits etc. in terms of RBE No.150/91 with consequential benefits thereupon.

(iii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow compassionate appointment to one of the member of the Family after annulment of penalty in terms of RBE No.150/91

iv) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.

3. The brief facts, as apparent from the Original Application, are that the husband of the applicant, while working as a Senior Clerk, left his PUNIT house for office on 01.10.1992 but did not return home. Upon inquiry from the office, it was revealed that he had not reached the office, and since then he has been missing. Accordingly, a complaint was made by the applicant at Police Station Sipri Bazar, Jhansi on 05.10.1992. The applicant also intimated the respondents about the missing of her husband on 01.10.1992. After the passage of time, when no information was received, the applicant sent a reminder to the concerned Police Station vide letter dated 01.11.1996. On 08.05.1997, the Sipri Bazar Police Station registered a case stating that the husband of the applicant, namely Shri Anand Sandilya, was missing from the office and had not returned home.

3.1 The applicant also intimated the respondents that she had two small daughters and that her husband was missing, and therefore requested employment and monetary assistance. In this regard, respondent-2, vide letter dated 18.02.1997, directed the applicant to provide a copy of the First Information Report, the final report submitted by the Police, and newspaper cuttings regarding the missing of her husband.

3.2 In response, the applicant submitted all the relevant documents to respondent-2 with a request to decide the matter expeditiously; however, no action was taken. Consequently, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1073/1998, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her claim for compassionate appointment. In the said Original Application, the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the husband of the applicant had been dismissed from service on account of absence from duty and, therefore, the applicant could not be considered for compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the Original Application was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2000 on the ground of dismissal from service of the applicant’s husband.

PUNIT

3.3 Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 20943/2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In the writ petition, the applicant raised a plea that there existed a provision for annulment of penalty by the Appellat