ups_00478 — Husband of the Applicant who worked as Postal Assistant was reported to be missing from 6-10-2000. Search to find the Applicant's husband failed. Hence the Tribunal directed the Respondents, Prakasam Postal Division at Ongole to grant pension to the Applicant from 6-10-2000 till 5-10-2007 and other retiral benefits and thereafter family pension to the Applicant as per Rules by reckoning the date of missing as 6-10-2000

UPS

Husband of the Applicant who worked as Postal Assistant was reported to be missing from 6-10-2000. Search to find the Applicant's husband failed. Hence the Tribunal directed the Respondents, Prakasam Postal Division at Ongole to grant pension to the Applicant from 6-10-2000 till 5-10-2007 and other retiral benefits and thereafter family pension to the Applicant as per Rules by reckoning the date of missing as 6-10-2000 — The chunk discusses a court ruling granting full pension to an applicant for seven years following her husband's disappearance in 2000, as per laws laid down by the Apex Court and the Hon’ble Court o... — Facts: Husband of the Applicant, while working as Postal Assistant was missing from 6-10-2000. As Inkollu Police Station did not respond to her request for finding her husband, the Applicant filed this OA in the Hon'ble Court of J.F.C.M., Parchur for a direction to Police to search for her husband whose whereabouts are not known. As no result had been delivered, Applicant claims grant of terminal benefits and pension / family pension due to her husband being a missing employee. As the Respondents namely, Prakasam Postal Division denied the terminal benefits, she filed this OA for granting family pension and other retirement benefits to the Applicant. Applicant contends that her husband is missing from 6-10-2000 and the whereabouts of her husband is not known. Hence Hon'ble JFCM Court had held that the Applicant is to be granted terminal benefits and family pension as the whereabouts of her husband is not known. Respondents state that the whereabouts of the Applicant's husband is not known in spite of their efforts to find him, a charge-sheet initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and appointing Enquiry Officer. Based on the enquiry where none came to state anything of the missing employee, the department removed the missing employee (husband of the Applicant) from service. As the husband of the petitioner was removed from service in the year 2005, the Applicant is not eligible for any retirement benefits. Even though the Applicant approached the Tribunal, after a long period of her missing husband, the case being a continuous cause of action, Applicant is entitled for seeking pension / family pension. Hon'ble Court vide Order, dated 14-11-2017 held that there is none to assert that her husband, Madugula Ravikumar is alive and the Applicant's husband is unheared from October, 2000. Hence the charge-sheet filed can be accepted. Hence the Court came to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner is missing from 6-10-2000. As per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the penalty of removal from service of the husband of the Applicant was imposed. Tribunal relying upon the observation of Apex Court in “Union of India and others v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others [ 1998 (7) SCC 569 ] held in that case that “neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon the original Respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar the entire proceeding were vitiated”. The above judgment covers the case of the Applicant. Hence the entire disciplinary proceedings were vitiated. Knowing that the Applicant's husband is reported to be missing from October, 2000 onwards, charge-sheet was issued belatedly. But none ensured that it was delivered. If the charge-memo is not issued, the Respondents were expected to publish the same in the newspaper. DoP&T in the handbook published has clarified the above order. As the Respondents failed to establish that the absence of their employee for initiating disciplinary action is invalid in view of the Rule and law as stated above. As the Applicant's husband is missing from October, 2000, he is to be construed to be no more. Based on the observation as above, Respondents need to have considered that the husband of the Applicant has been missing from October, 2000. In regard to retiral benefits to be granted to family members of the missing employee, OM, dated 24/25-6-2013 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stipulates certain conditions to be complied with which are extracted in the judgment. Apex Court held in case missing person is not found for 7 years, then the person concerned is presumed to be dead after lapse of 7 years. The observation of Apex Court in Rubabbudin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [ 2007 (4) SCC 404 ] is relied upon to assert the above. That relevant portion is reproduced.

UPS

Husband of the Applicant who worked as Postal Assistant was reported to be missing from 6-10-2000. Search to find the Applicant's husband failed. Hence the Tribunal directed the Respondents, Prakasam Postal Division at Ongole to grant pension to the Applicant from 6-10-2000 till 5-10-2007 and other retiral benefits and thereafter family pension to the Applicant as per Rules by reckoning the date of missing as 6-10-2000 — The chunk discusses a court ruling granting full pension to an applicant for seven years following her husband's disappearance in 2000, as per laws laid down by the Apex Court and the Hon’ble Court o... — Facts: Husband of the Applicant, while working as Postal Assistant was missing from 6-10-2000. As Inkollu Police Station did not respond to her request for finding her husband, the Applicant filed this OA in the Hon'ble Court of J.F.C.M., Parchur for a direction to Police to search for her husband whose whereabouts are not known. As no result had been delivered, Applicant claims grant of terminal benefits and pension / family pension due to her husband being a missing employee. As the Respondents namely, Prakasam Postal Division denied the terminal benefits, she filed this OA for granting family pension and other retirement benefits to the Applicant. Applicant contends that her husband is missing from 6-10-2000 and the whereabouts of her husband is not known. Hence Hon'ble JFCM Court had held that the Applicant is to be granted terminal benefits and family pension as the whereabouts of her husband is not known. Respondents state that the whereabouts of the Applicant's husband is not known in spite of their efforts to find him, a charge-sheet initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and appointing Enquiry Officer. Based on the enquiry where none came to state anything of the missing employee, the department removed the missing employee (husband of the Applicant) from service. As the husband of the petitioner was removed from service in the year 2005, the Applicant is not eligible for any retirement benefits. Even though the Applicant approached the Tribunal, after a long period of her missing husband, the case being a continuous cause of action, Applicant is entitled for seeking pension / family pension. Hon'ble Court vide Order, dated 14-11-2017 held that there is none to assert that her husband, Madugula Ravikumar is alive and the Applicant's husband is unheared from October, 2000. Hence the charge-sheet filed can be accepted. Hence the Court came to the conclusion that the husband of the petitioner is missing from 6-10-2000. As per Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, the penalty of removal from service of the husband of the Applicant was imposed. Tribunal relying upon the observation of Apex Court in “Union of India and others v. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and others [ 1998 (7) SCC 569 ] held in that case that “neither the charge-sheet nor the show-cause notice were ever served upon the original Respondent, Dinanath Shantaram Karekar the entire proceeding were vitiated”. The above judgment covers the case of the Applicant. Hence the entire disciplinary proceedings were vitiated. Knowing that the Applicant's husband is reported to be missing from October, 2000 onwards, charge-sheet was issued belatedly. But none ensured that it was delivered. If the charge-memo is not issued, the Respondents were expected to publish the same in the newspaper. DoP&T in the handbook published has clarified the above order. As the Respondents failed to establish that the absence of their employee for initiating disciplinary action is invalid in view of the Rule and law as stated above. As the Applicant's husband is missing from October, 2000, he is to be construed to be no more. Based on the observation as above, Respondents need to have considered that the husband of the Applicant has been missing from October, 2000. In regard to retiral benefits to be granted to family members of the missing employee, OM, dated 24/25-6-2013 of the Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare stipulates certain conditions to be complied with which are extracted in the judgment. Apex Court held in case missing person is not found for 7 years, then the person concerned is presumed to be dead after lapse of 7 years. The observation of Apex Court in Rubabbudin Sheikh v. State of Gujarat [ 2007 (4) SCC 404 ] is relied upon to assert the above. That relevant portion is reproduced.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text