Sarla v. Union Of India And ORS

$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6801/2016 SARLA ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Represented by:

Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj and Dr.G.L.Bhati, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 04.08.2016 CM No.27928/2016 Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

W.P.(C) 6801/2016 1.

Sanctioned fifteen days earned leave commencing from May 10, 1999 till May 24, 1999 husband of the petitioner was to report to the Commandant of the CISF 12th Reserved Battalion at Farakka on March 25, 1999. He did not report back. Charge-sheet for indiscipline and disobedience of orders directing husband of the petitioner to report back for duty was served upon the husband of the petitioner who submitted a reply that on account of his mental condition deteriorating he was under treatment at Safdarjung Hospital. But, he did not appear before the Enquiry Officer who submitted a report resulting in an order being passed removing husband of the petitioner from service.

2.

The husband of the petitioner went missing. He was not heard of. Petitioner constantly wrote to the respondents stating that since those who ought to have heard about her husband had not heard about him a presumption under Section 108 of Indian Evident Act, 1872 would have to be raised that he was dead.

W.P.(C) 6801/2016

3.

Constant reminders sent went unheeded. The petitioner claims family pension on the premise that as per law her husband would be deemed to be dead. She also claims that the order of removal from service could not be passed against a dead person.

4.

Today learned counsel for the respondents who appears on advance copy of the writ petition being served has produced a copy of an order dated May 30, 2016 which has given redressal to the petitioner. Noting that husband of the petitioner was last heard and seen on June 24, 2000 and thereafter is untraceable, order has been passed that in the peculiar facts of the case the order of removing late husband of the petitioner from service is set aside. While enclosing a copy of the order to various authorities it has been directed that petitioner's case for family pension be processed. 5.

Under the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of as infructuous directing simultaneously that should the respondents requiring the petitioner to complete codal formalities and sign papers which they would require for petitioner to be sanctioned family pension they would do so at the address disclosed in the memo of parties in the instant writ petition. Apart from family pension such other amount which had to be paid to the petitioner would also be paid.

6.

It is hoped and expected that family pension to the petitioner would be sanctioned and arrears paid within twelve weeks from today, as also other benefits to which she would be entitled to.

7.

No costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

AUGUST 04, 2016 'st'

W.P.(C) 6801/2016