SAVITRI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.06.1999 (Annexure P-2) whereby his services were terminated and the order dated 18.09.2003 (Annexure P-6) whereby the retiral benefits of the husband of the petitioner has been denied to her. The husband of the petitioner, Mir Singh, was working as Conductor in the Haryana Roadways Depot, Gurgaon on regular basis. He went missing on 06.07.1990. By an order dated 03.06.1999, his services were terminated on account of absence. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit for declaration that her husband had died under the presumption of death by taking recourse of Section 108 of the Evidence Act and by judgment and decree dated 25.10.2001 the said suit was decreed. Subsequently the petitioner represented to the respondents that the order of termination of the services of her husband be set aside and she be granted retiral benefits and her son be given compassionate appointment. Since no action was taken thereon she filed writ petition bearing C.W.P. No. 3582 of 2003 which was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2003 with the direction to the respondents to consider her claim and decide her legal notice by passing a speaking order. By order dated 18.09.2003 her claim was rejected on the ground that she had not lodged an FIR regarding her husband's disappearance. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset states that he would not now press the claim of compassionate appointment of the son of the petitioner since 26 years have elapsed from the disappearance of the petitioner and restrict his claim towards setting aside the order of termination of the husband of the petitioner and release of retiral dues. He argues that once the Civil Court had issued a declaration that the husband of the petitioner had died her claim could not have been rejected on the ground that she had not lodged an FIR for his disappearance because after the decision of the Civil Court it is not open to any person or authority to dispute the factum of death of the husband of the petitioner.

(3.) Learned Assistant Advocate General has tried to justify the action of the respondents by arguing that as per the rules it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have lodged an FIR and therefore the respondents were correct in not accepting the factum of death of the husband of the petitioner.