Union of India & Ors. Vs. Geeta Devi
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 9137/1995
Petitioner: Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: Geeta Devi
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 9137/1995
Judges: S. RAJENDRA BABU & DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 08, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965
Rule 5(2) – Termination of temporary employee on 23.9.82 – Thereafter, wife filing claim for various reliefs – Basis of claim, missing of husband for 7 years and presumed to be dead. Held that relief granted by tribunal are not in order. Application by wife to be dismissed. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Husband of the respondent, Bhimeent Sore, was appointed on casual basis from 24.9.1979. Thereafter, he was appointed on temporary basis from 8.12.1980
under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. It
appears that thereafter he remained unauthorizedly absent. It appears he was admitted in the hospital on 4.4.1981 and discharged on 14.4. 1981. He attended his duty upto 21.5.1981. Thereafter he remained absent. Inasmuch as the said employee absented from his duty without being permitted by necessary authority, the appellants initiated proceedings as contemplated under rule 5(2) of the CCS Temporary Services Rules and subsequently discharged him from service w.e.f. 23.9.1982. Thereafter an original application was filed by the respondent for various reliefs namely, arrears of salary, family pension, payment of death-cum- retirement gratuity and group insurance and to give suitable employment to her, as he is deemed to have died in harness. The basis upon which the respondent claimed the said reliefs is that her husband disappeared and remained missing for more than seven years and he should presumed to be dead.
2. The tribunal by an order made on 27.10.1994 directed to give whatever dues were payable to the respondent treating her husband to have died on 16.4.1988 and also directed to give a suitable employment to her in class IV as a dependant of the employee who dies in harness and in addition the payment of compensation of Rs. 50, 000/-. This order is assailed in this appeal.
3. It is clear from the narration of the facts that the services of the husband of the respondent were terminated w.e.f. 23.9.1982. If that is so, question of giving any other relief as sought for by the respondent would not arise at all. The tribunal ignoring these aspects of the case has given the relief in question which we think is not in order. Therefore, the order made by the tribunal is set aside and the application filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
1. Husband of the respondent, Bhimeent Sore, was appointed on casual basis from 24.9.1979. Thereafter, he was appointed on temporary basis from 8.12.1980
under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. It
appears that thereafter he remained unauthorizedly absent. It appears he was admitted in the hospital on 4.4.1981 and discharged on 14.4. 1981. He attended his duty upto 21.5.1981. Thereafter he remained absent. Inasmuch as the said employee absented from his duty without being permitted by necessary authority, the appellants initiated proceedings as contemplated under rule 5(2) of the CCS Temporary Services Rules and subsequently discharged him from service w.e.f. 23.9.1982. Thereafter an original application was filed by the respondent for various reliefs namely, arrears of salary, family pension, payment of death-cum- retirement gratuity and group insurance and to give suitable employment to her, as he is deemed to have died in harness. The basis upon which the respondent claimed the said reliefs is that her husband disappeared and remained missing for more than seven years and he should presumed to be dead.
2. The tribunal by an order made on 27.10.1994 directed to give whatever dues were payable to the respondent treating her husband to have died on 16.4.1988 and also directed to give a suitable employment to her in class IV as a dependant of the employee who dies in harness and in addition the payment of compensation of Rs. 50, 000/-. This order is assailed in this appeal.
3. It is clear from the narration of the facts that the services of the husband of the respondent were terminated w.e.f. 23.9.1982. If that is so, question of giving any other relief as sought for by the respondent would not arise at all. The tribunal ignoring these aspects of the case has given the relief in question which we think is not in order. Therefore, the order made by the tribunal is set aside and the application filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
