UNION OF INDIA Vs. KAKKUDIBEN CHAMPAKBHAI DAMOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 3.4.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Original Application No.406 of 2010.

(2.) DECEASED Champakbhai Roopa Damor, husband of the respondent was serving under present petitioner No.2- original respondent No.2, DRM, Western Railway, Vadodara on regular basis. He was issued charge sheet on 22.5.1998 for alleged unauthorised absence for 8 days and after ex-parte inquiry, initially he was awarded punishment of removal from service vide order dated 20.5.1999. The said order was challenged in O.A. No. 44/2001 after which on being allowed, the deceased employee filed statutory appeal. Being aggrieved by the subsequent order, the deceased employee had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") by filing OA No.315/2007 wherein the Tribunal directed to remit the matter back to the appellate authority for deciding the appeal on merits in the light of the discussions made in the order. The revisional authority considered the appeal and passed order dated 24.1.2009 modifying the punishment as "compulsory retirement" w.e.f. 20.5.1999. Thereafter the respondent requested for retirement dues as per the order dated 6.1.2009 and has stated that despite the family pension scheme, she was informed that as her husband had not completed the requisite qualifying service for pension of 10 years the competent authority had not sanctioned the pension. According to the petitioners, the deceased employee had completed only 8 years, 1 month and 20 days. The deceased employee died before the order of compulsory retirement was passed on 6.1.2009 and the settlement dues were paid to the widow of the deceased employee. The respondent approached the Tribunal for not granting the family pension consequent to the order of compulsory retirement w.e.f. 20.5.1999 vide order dated 6.1.2009. The Tribunal vide order dated 3.4.2012 disposed of the Original Application No. 406 of 2010 with direction to pay the salary and allowances as admissible from the date of punishment i.e. 5.9.1999 till his death or superannuation from service whichever is earlier. It was further directed that the orders of the Tribunal shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. This order is challenged in this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Ms. Sunita Chaturvedi for the respondent widow of deceased employee submitted that deceased husband of the respondent was dismissed from service only on the charge of unauthorized absence for eight days after an ex parte enquiry. It is also submitted that husband of the respondent expired on 23.10.2008 before the order dated 6.1.2009. It is very clear that on the date of death, the order of compulsory retirement had not been passed and the order of removal of service had been quashed and set aside on 7.7.2008 by the Tribunal in OA. No. 315/2007. She vehemently argued that in fact no order existed against the employee on the date of his death. Hence he should be deemed to continue in service on the date of his death and would, therefore, be entitled to pension. She further submitted that as per the direction of the Tribunal opportunity of appeal should be made available to the applicant against the order of removal of service passed by the disciplinary authority. However, by the time such orders were passed, the employee had died and this fact was noted by the appellate/revisional authority while passing the order dated 6.1.2009. Thus, the employee during his life time did not get an opportunity to seek legal remedy against the order of the Disciplinary Authority after his death. She finally submitted that the Tribunal has rightly decided the Original Application which does not call for any interference.