S. USHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant claims to be the wife of Shri Susheelan who was working as a Trackman under Senior Section Engineer, Sakaleshpur. The applicant is a resident of Trivandrum District. The applicant contends: Susheelan used to visit the family consisting of the applicant and her two sons only occasionally. He left the house in 2007; thereafter nothing was heard of him. The applicant submitted a representation vide Annexure A1 on 1.1.2010. Another representation Annexure A2 was also sent to which Annexure A3 and A4 replies were given. It was stated in Annexure A4 that Susheelan was guilty of unauthorized absence and that he had already been removed from service with effect from 24.6.2008. As Susheelan was not heard of for several years a presumption of death is to be drawn. A complaint was given by the applicant to trace Susheelan to Kadakkavoor Police Station on 14.6.2010 vide Annexure A6. Annexure A8 representation was given by the applicant followed by Annexure A9 dated 13.12.2012. Yet another representation Annexure A10 was also given. The respondents did not consider the length of service of Susheelan the husband of the applicant. The benefit of compassionate allowance should have been given to the applicant as provided in Rule 65 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. Thus, the applicant has filed this Original Application seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Annexures A8 and A9 representations and to grant her the benefit of family pension and compassionate allowance as provided under the relevant rules.

(2.) THE respondents filed reply statement admitting the fact that Susheelan was engaged as a Mazdoor and he was granted temporary status with effect from 1.1.1984 and was posted to Sakaleshpur. The contention that the applicant's husband was not heard of is incorrect. The representations Annexures A1 and A2 were forwarded to ADEN/Sakaleshpur as per Annexure A3. The applicant was also informed that Susheelan was removed from service with effect from 24.6.2008 vide Annexure A4. Susheelan was issued with a charge memorandum on the charge of unauthorized absence from 18.5.2006 to 20.8.2006. The acknowledgment received on 14.12.2006 and 27.1.2007 is evidenced by Annexures R1, R2 and R3. Susheelan was a habitual absentee. He was imposed with punishment earlier also and finally he was removed from service with effect from 24.6.2008 for unauthorized absence. Therefore, the plea raised by the applicant that she is entitled for family pension and other terminal benefits is untenable. Annexures A8 and A9 representations were for compassionate employment to the applicant's son. Those representations were under examination. In fact Annexure A10 is an unsigned representation. The employee (Susheelan) was charge sheeted for the unauthorized absence and he had in fact acknowledged the charge memorandum and also some of the notices issued to him relating to the inquiry conducted in the matter but Susheelan did not bother to submit any explanation nor did he participate in the inquiry. The averment made by the applicant that her husband has been missing has been stated for the 1st time in 2010 after a period of three years from the date of the inquiry; namely, after the inquiry notices were sent to Susheelan in January and March, 2007. No application was submitted specifically requesting for grant of compassionate allowance. The FIR was lodged not during the period of absence for which action was taken against Susheelan. That FIR was lodged only as an after thought in order to seek family pension/compassionate allowance.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also gone through the pleadings and documents.