Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Smt Ranjana Sandilya vs General Manager N C Rly on 18 February, 2026
(Reserved on 29.01.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 18th day of February, 2026
Original Application No.733 of 2014
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Smt. Ranjana Sandilya, w/o Anand Kumar Sandilya, C/o A.P. Khare, R/o
H.No.28, Old Charliganj, Opposite Arya Kanya Degree College Sipari
PUNIT
KUMAR
MISHRA Bazar, Jhansi ....Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Syamal Narain
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway,
Allahabad
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Jhansi Division, North Central
Railway, Jhansi
3. Senior Divisional Personal Officer, Jhansi Division, North Central
Railway, Jhansi
.... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Bashist Tiwari, Ms. Pooja Mishra
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-
Heard Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Basisht Tiwari, assisted by Ms. Pooja Mishra, learned counsels for the respondents at the time of hearing of the case.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
8.1 This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 13.10.2013 passed by the respondent-3.
(ii)this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to annulled the penalty against the husband of the Page 1 of 15 applicant and pay her relevant benefits like leave encashment, salary dues, retirement benefits etc. in terms of RBE No.150/91 with consequential benefits thereupon.
(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow compassionate appointment to one of the member of the Family after annulment of penalty in terms of RBE No.150/91
iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
3. The brief facts, as apparent from the Original Application, are PUNIT that the husband of the applicant, while working as a Senior Clerk, left his KUMAR MISHRA house for office on 01.10.1992 but did not return home. Upon inquiry from the office, it was revealed that he had not reached the office, and since then he has been missing. Accordingly, a complaint was made by the applicant at Police Station Sipri Bazar, Jhansi on 05.10.1992. The applicant also intimated the respondents about the missing of her husband on 01.10.1992. After the passage of time, when no information was received, the applicant sent a reminder to the concerned Police Station vide letter dated 01.11.1996. On 08.05.1997, the Sipri Bazar Police Station registered a case stating that the husband of the applicant, namely Shri Anand Sandilya, was missing from the office and had not returned home.
3.1 The applicant also intimated the respondents that she had two small daughters and that her husband was missing, and therefore requested employment and monetary assistance. In this regard, respondent-2, vide letter dated 18.02.1997, directed the applicant to provide a copy of the First Information Report, the final report submitted by the Police, and newspaper cuttings regarding the missing of her husband.
3.2 In response, the applicant submitted all the relevant documents to respondent-2 with a request to decide the matter expeditiously; however, no action was taken. Consequently, the applicant Page 2 of 15 approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1073/1998, seeking a direction to the respondents to consider her claim for compassionate appointment. In the said Original Application, the respondents filed a counter affidavit stating that the husband of the applicant had been dismissed from service on account of absence from duty and, therefore, the applicant could not be considered for compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the Original Application was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2000 on the ground of dismissal from service of the applicant's husband. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 3.3 Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 20943/2001 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In the writ petition, the applicant raised a plea that there existed a provision for annulment of penalty by the Appellate Authority/Revisionary Authority and that the revision/review procedure would not be applicable. By dropping the penalty, the applicant claimed entitlement to all death-cum-retiral benefits as per Railway Board's Letter dated 22.08.1991. 3.4 As this was a new plea raised by the applicant before the High Court, the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2006, with the observation that since the issue had not been raised before the Tribunal, the only remedy available to the applicant was to file a Review Application before the Tribunal, and such issues could not be dealt with by the Writ Court.
3.5 Despite repeated efforts, no relief was granted. Thereafter, the applicant again approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1101/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2013 with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the applicant in accordance with RBE No. 150/1991. However, the respondents rejected the claim vide order dated 13.10.2013. The said order dated 13.10.2013 is impugned in the present Original Application.
Page 3 of 15
4. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondents on 08.08.2024, wherein it was stated that the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1073/1998, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2000. Against the said order, the applicant filed Writ Petition No. 20943/2001 before the Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2006, granting liberty to the applicant to file a Review Application against the Tribunal's order dated 11.12.2000. However, no Review Application was filed by the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA applicant. Instead, in 2013, the applicant preferred another Original Application, being O.A. No. 1101/2013, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2013 with a direction to decide the representation of the applicant dated 30.04.2012.
4.1 In compliance with the aforesaid order, the respondents decided the case of the applicant on merits vide order dated 31.10.2013. It was contended that there was no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order and that the case was barred by the principle of res judicata, as the same relief had already been claimed and rejected in O.A. No. 1073/1998.
4.2 The respondents further contended that although the applicant claimed that her husband was missing w.e.f. 01.10.1992, no FIR was lodged prior to 08.05.1997, and only a missing report was made on that date, raising doubts about the genuineness of the claim. 4.3 It was also stated that although the applicant claimed to have informed the police on 05.10.1992 by post, no proof of receipt was produced. Further, the publication of the missing notice in newspapers on 06.07.1996 indicated that the information was given to the police only on 05.07.1996.
4.4 As per Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a railway servant who is dismissed or removed from service forfeits Page 4 of 15 his pension and gratuity. However, the competent authority may, if the case deserves special consideration, sanction a compassionate allowance not exceeding two-thirds of the pension or gratuity or both, which would have been admissible had the employee retired on compensation pension. The Rules further require a minimum of 10 years of qualifying service for grant of compassionate allowance. In the present case, the qualifying service of the employee was only 7 years, 5 months, and 13 days; therefore, no compassionate allowance was admissible. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 4.5 The instant Original Application was time-barred, as the husband of the applicant was dismissed from service on 04.05.1994, whereas the present application was filed in 2014. It was also alleged that the applicant had concealed the fact that she had earlier approached this Tribunal twice. Hence, the Original Application was liable to be dismissed.
5. In reply, the applicant filed a rejoinder affidavit on 18.04.2022, reiterating the averments made in the Original Application. It was stated that although the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal for retiral benefits, she came to know for the first time about the removal of her husband from service through the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. The applicant had never challenged the order of removal earlier due to lack of knowledge. Therefore, the earlier litigation pertained to retiral benefits, whereas the present Original Application seeks annulment of the penalty imposed upon her husband. Upon annulment, the applicant would automatically become entitled to consequential benefits, treating the case as one of death of a government servant, in accordance with RBE No. 151/1991.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order on the ground that the impugned order dated 13.10.2013 is illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside, being contrary to the settled principles of law and the applicable Railway Board instructions. Page 5 of 15 6.1 It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the husband of the applicant, while working as a Senior Clerk, went missing on 01.10.1992 and has not been traced till date. The applicant had duly intimated both the police authorities and the respondents regarding the missing of her husband and had continuously pursued the matter. The disappearance of the employee was never voluntary and was beyond the control of the applicant or the employee himself. 6.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA order of removal/dismissal of the applicant's husband was passed ex parte and without any effective service of notice upon either the employee or the applicant, who was unaware of such proceedings. The applicant came to know about the alleged removal from service only through the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in earlier litigation. Due to lack of knowledge, the applicant could not challenge the order of removal at the relevant time.
6.3 It is further submitted that the earlier Original Application and the subsequent writ petition were confined to the issue of compassionate appointment and retiral benefits, and not for annulment of the penalty of removal. The instant Original Application raises a distinct and independent cause of action, namely, annulment of the penalty imposed upon the missing employee, and therefore, the principle of res judicata is not applicable.
6.4 Learned counsel places reliance upon Railway Board's Letter/RBE No. 150/1991 which provides that in cases where a railway employee is missing and is deemed to have died after the prescribed period, the case is to be treated as death in harness for the purpose of settlement of retiral benefits and other consequential benefits. Once the penalty of removal is annulled, the applicant becomes automatically entitled to death-cum-retiral benefits.
Page 6 of 15 6.5 It is also contended by the counsel for the applicant that the respondents have adopted a hyper-technical approach by doubting the genuineness of the missing report, despite the fact that the employee has been untraceable for more than three decades. The cause of action is recurring in nature, as denial of retiral benefits continues to prejudice the applicant.
6.6 Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that it is not open to the respondents to raise the issue of maintainability of the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Original Application on the ground that the High Court had granted liberty to the applicant to file a Review Application. Admittedly, the applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1101/2013, wherein the respondents ought to have raised such a plea regarding maintainability in view of the order passed by the High Court. Having failed to do so, the respondents cannot now be permitted to raise the said objection. Moreover, the representation of the applicant was thereafter decided by the respondents on merits, and the said decision has been challenged in the instant Original Application, which gives rise to a fresh and independent cause of action 6.7 In view of the above submissions, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 13.10.2013 be quashed, the penalty of removal imposed upon the applicant's husband be annulled, and the respondents be directed to release all consequential death-cum-retiral benefits to the applicant in accordance with the applicable Railway Board instructions.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted that the applicant had earlier approached this Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1073/1998, seeking compassionate appointment on the same set of facts, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2000. The applicant thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 20943/2001 before the Hon'ble Page 7 of 15 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.01.2006, granting liberty to the applicant only to file a Review Application before the Tribunal. Admittedly, no Review Application was ever filed. Therefore, the present Original Application is barred by the principles of res judicata as well as constructive res judicata. 7.1 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant, despite having full knowledge of the earlier proceedings, again approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1101/2013, which was PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA disposed of vide order dated 06.09.2013 merely with a direction to decide her representation. Pursuant thereto, the respondents passed a reasoned and speaking order on merits dated 31.10.2013. The said order does not confer any fresh right upon the applicant, and the present Original Application is only an indirect attempt to reopen issues which have already been finally decided.
7.2 It is further contended by counsel for the respondents that the husband of the applicant was dismissed from service on 04.05.1994 due to unauthorized absence. Under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993, a dismissed employee forfeits his right to pension and gratuity. The grant of compassionate allowance is discretionary and subject to fulfillment of the mandatory condition of minimum qualifying service of 10 years. In the present case, the employee had rendered only 7 years, 5 months, and 13 days of qualifying service, and therefore, no compassionate allowance is admissible.
7.3 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the applicant's claim of missing of her husband w.e.f. 01.10.1992 is doubtful and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence. No FIR was registered until 08.05.1997, and only a missing information through post was given prior to that. The applicant has failed to produce any proof of receipt of her alleged complaint dated 05.10.1992 by the police Page 8 of 15 authorities. Further, the publication of the missing notice in newspapers in July 1996 indicates that the information regarding missing was given much later than claimed.
7.4 It is also submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the present Original Application suffers from gross delay and laches. The order of dismissal was passed in 1994, whereas the present application has been filed in 2014, after a lapse of nearly two decades, without any satisfactory explanation. The applicant has also suppressed material facts PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA by not disclosing the earlier rounds of litigation in a proper manner. 7.5 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that merely because the respondents decided the representation of the applicant pursuant to the Tribunal's direction, the same does not create a fresh cause of action nor does it revive a stale and time-barred claim. The impugned order dated 31.10.2013 is legal, valid, and passed in strict compliance with the applicable rules and instructions. 7.6 Learned counsel for the respondents placed heavy reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Sankar Sitraram Vs. Bal Krishna Sitaram, reported in AIR 1954 SC 352 and in case of C. Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining and Anr. Reported in 2008 (10) SCC 115 and submits that period of limitation will apply for grant of pensionary benefits also.
7.7 In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents prayed that the Original Application be dismissed with costs.
8. We have considered the arguments, so raised by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records carefully.
9. It is not in dispute that the husband of the applicant, who was working as a Senior Clerk under the respondents, went missing on 01.10.1992 while proceeding to his office and has not been traced till date.
Page 9 of 15
10. It is also undisputed that he neither reported for duty on that day nor returned to his residence thereafter. The applicant promptly informed the police authorities through registered post. The respondents have primarily opposed the claim of the applicant on the grounds of res judicata, limitation, and the alleged dismissal of the employee from service. However, from a careful perusal of the earlier proceedings, it is evident that the Original Application No. 1073/1998, as well as the subsequent writ petition, were confined to the issue of compassionate PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA appointment and release of retiral benefits. The question of annulment of the penalty of removal/dismissal imposed upon the missing employee was raised in O.A.No.1101/2013, which was disposed of by this Tribunal without going into the merits of the case vide order dated 06.09.2013 with a direction upon the respondents to pass a reasoned and detailed order on the representation of the applicant. At the time of disposal of O.A. No.1101/2013, the respondents have not taken plea that aforesaid Original Application is not maintainable in view of the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 20943/2001, by which, the applicant was granted liberty to file a Review Application before the Tribunal. Admittedly, in compliance thereof, the respondents passed the impugned order on merits.
11. Once the respondents themselves have decided the claim afresh on merits, they cannot be permitted to question the maintainability of the present Original Application. The impugned order thus gives rise to a fresh cause of action. The present Original Application, which seeks annulment of the penalty and consequential benefits, therefore rests on a distinct and independent cause of action. Accordingly, the bar of res judicata or constructive res judicata is not attracted.
12. Now the question involved in this original application is that as to whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the dismissal Page 10 of 15 order passed against the applicant's husband can be annulled and whether the pleadings and evidence brought on record by the applicant are sufficient to establish that her husband has been missing since 01.10.1992.
13. It reflects from the record that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the missing employee on the basis of absence from duty since 01.10.1992. These proceedings were initiated in the year 1993, whereas the applicant had lodged a missing report with the police on PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA 08.05.1997 belatedly, but before that she made information to the Police Department as well as respondent Authorities and same was also published in Newspaper. More than 34 years have elapsed and till date the police have not been able to trace the whereabouts of the missing employee. Since the missing report lodged by the applicant regarding her husband was genuine and he has not been seen since 01.10.1992 and he has not appeared before any authority since then, this Tribunal observes that more than 34 years have elapsed since the date of his disappearance, accordingly, a presumption of civil death is drawn as per Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. For better appreciation of the matter, RBE No.150/1991 is quoted as under:-
Sub: Cancellation of penalty of removal from service imposed on charge of un-authorized absence where it later transpires that the case is one of 'genuine missing' and grant of consequent benefits to the missing person 's family.
1. Some cases have come to notice where Railway servants who were missing and whose whereabouts were not known to their family were removed from service for un-authorized absence. It has been represented by the NFIR in PNM meeting with Railway Board that initiation of disciplinary action in such cases where even the police after all-out efforts have not been able to trace the employee, is not justified since they are to be presumed as dead under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act. The NFIR also represented that in such cases, the disciplinary action / punishment should be annulled and the families be granted pension and their request for compassionate appointment to wards etc. to which they would have been entitled but for the disciplinary action be also considered.
2. The Board have considered the matter and it is clarified that in cases of the type mentioned above where it is established Page 11 of 15 that the railway employee was really missing and not un-
authorizedly absent, the disciplinary action should be treated as initiated on invalid premises and the on-going disciplinary action or the punishment order should be annulled. While the annulment of on-going disciplinary proceedings in such cases may be made by the disciplinary authority, in the cases of punishment orders already issued, the annulment may be made by the appellate / revisionary authority, as the case may be, for this purpose. It is not necessary to follow any 'Revision' or 'Review' procedure since the charges / punishment are obviously based on invalid premises. After dropping of the disciplinary action and annulment of the punishment of removal, as the case may be, the relevant benefits like grant of leave encashment, salary dues, retirement benefits, etc. may be extended as outlined in PUNIT Board's letter No.F(E)III/86/PN1/17, dated 19.09.1986. KUMAR MISHRA
3. In the cases of aforesaid type, the question of giving compassionate appointments towards may also be considered after a period of 7 years/ 3 years as provided in item (iii) of para 1 of Board's letter No.E(NG)III/78/RC1/1, dated 07.04.1983.
14. A bare reading of RBE No. 150/1991, clearly reveals that annulment of punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings can be done at the level of the appellate or revisional authority if it is established that the employee was missing on the date of issuance of the charge- sheet and the proceedings were conducted ex parte. In the present matter, the contents of dismissal order clearly show that the employee did not participate in the enquiry, which was conducted in ex-parte manner, resulting in the imposition of punishment. No document is brought on record by the respondents, which shows that the copy of inquiry report and dismissal order has been pasted in the house of the applicant or punishment order was served by way of publication in the newspaper. The applicant's plea also finds support with the respondents' pleadings to the extent that the police have not been able to trace the whereabouts of the employee till date. In these circumstances, it can safely be presumed that the missing of the employee was genuine.
15. It is clarified that Courts/Tribunals have also annulled the punishment if circumstances established before it. Similar issue came up for consideration before the High Court, Allahabad in case of Smt. Mithlesh Vs. State of UP and three others decided in Writ A No. 3987 Page 12 of 15 of 2021 on 21.07.2025 by Allahabad High Court; wherein, disciplinary proceeding started against the missing employee on the ground that he was absent from duty without leave and punishment imposed on the basis of said charge terminating the service of the missing employee was found bad and unsustainable. The Allahabad High Court specifically held that the police had admitted that the whereabouts of the missing employee were not known. As more than seven years had elapsed, the department could treat the missing employee as civil death. It was observed that no PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA amount of enquiry would change the admitted fact. Accordingly, compassionate appointment and other benefits were directed.
16. Further, the Patna High Court in case of Union of India and others Vs. Smt. Jira Devi others decided in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7761 of 2013 on 16.07.2014, it has been held as under:
"Before proceeding further, what needs to be noted is that two issues, broadly speaking, fall for determination in this writ petition, namely, (i) whether family pension shall be made available to the wife of a missing Railway employee after one year from the date, when the employee was found missing, or one year Patna High Court CWJC No.7761 of 2013 (5) dt.16-07-2014 7/11 after the date on which the F.I.R., as regards disappearance of the employee, was lodged and the second issue is (ii) if, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the direction, given by the learned Tribunal to pay pension with effect from 01.06.1998 (i.e., one year after the date on which the husband of the respondent went missing) is legally valid?
We notice that the Railways Circular, bearing R.B.E. No.3/94 read thus:
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (BHARAT SARKAR) MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS/RAIL MANTRALAYA (RAILWAY BOARD) RBE No. 3/1994 No. F(E)III/86/PN 1/17 dated 21/01/1994 Subject :- Grant of settlement dues to eligible family members of Railway employees who have suddenly disappeared and whose whereabouts are not known.
Attention is invited to this Ministry's letters of even number dated 19.9.1986 and 27.3.1991 [RBE 63/1991] on the above subject as per which the families of the employees/pensioners whose whereabouts are not known are paid in the first instance, the amount of salary due, leave encashment due and the amount of Provident Fund pertaining to his own subscription in the State Railway Provident Fund having regard to the nomination made by the employee and after the lapse of a period of one year other benefits like DCRG and family pension are also paid. The period of one year is reckoned with reference to the date on which FIR is Page 13 of 15 lodged with the police about the disappearance of the concerned employee/ pensioner. At present the family pension is Patna High Court sanctioned and paid to the eligible member of the family one year after date of registering the FIR with the police and no family pension is paid for the intervening period of one year from the date the FIR is lodged to the date the family pension can be sanctioned. It has now been decided that the family pension, which in pursuance of the earlier orders, will continue to be sanctioned and paid one year after the date of lodging the FIR, will accrue from the date of lodging the FIR or expiry of leave of the employee who has disappeared whichever is later. When the sanction for family pension is issued, the payment of pension from the date of accrual may be authorised. The usual procedure of obtaining the indemnity bond etc. as laid down in the letter dated 19.9.1986 will continue to be followed. While sanctioning payment of family pension, it will be PUNIT ensured by the concerned authorities that family pension is not KUMAR MISHRA authorised for any period during which payment of pay & allowances in respect of the disappeared employee has been made.
This is in supersession of Board's earlier order of even number dated 21.01.1992 [RBE 8/1992] "
From a cautious reading of what has been reproduced above, it becomes abundantly clear that when a Railway employee is found missing, family pension to his wife will be made available and, for this purpose, it is the date of the F.I.R., lodged with the police, which would be taken into account and the benefits of family pension would be made available after one year of the date of report of disappearance.
The learned Tribunal is, therefore, wholly incorrect in taking the view that the family pension becomes payable after one year of the date, when a Railway employee goes missing irrespective of the fact as to whether the F.I.R. was lodged or not. To this extent, the impugned order, dated 13.07.2012, passed by the learned Tribunal, is incorrect and, we hasten to reiterate, that family pension would become available to the wife of a missing Railway employee with effect from one year after the date of lodging of the F.I.R. as regards the disappearance of her husband.
Coming to the relief, which has been granted in the present case, what needs to be noted is that the petitioner‟s husband, admittedly, went missing on 01.06.1997. There is also no denial, as the written statement filed in the learned Tribunal indicates, of the fact that the respondent had tried to get the F.I.R. registered with regard to the disappearance of her husband, but having not succeeded, she made a complaint, in this regard, under registered post, to the jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 03.02.2003. In the face of the fact that no denial of these assertions of the respondent herein took place in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, it clearly follows that it was soon after the disappearance of the husband of the applicant respondent herein Patna High Court dt.16-07-2014 10/11 that attempted to lodge an F.I.R. was made by the respondent herein, but she did not succeed".
17. In view of the above discussion and taking into consideration the fact that the punishment was imposed solely on the ground of absence, the same is also liable to be annulled in light of RBE No. Page 14 of 15 150/1991 (supra). Consequently, the prayers made in the OA for grant of family pension, other post-retiral benefits, and consideration for compassionate appointment are liable to be allowed. The judgment relied upon by the counsel for the respondents are not applicable in this case as the facts are otherwise.
18. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. The impugned order dated 13.10.2013 as well as dismissal order dated 04.05.1994, as well as the entire enquiry proceedings are annulled and declared illegal and the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA removal of the applicant's husband from service is set aside. The case of the applicant's husband, namely Anand Kumar Sandilya is treated as one of civil death.
19. The respondents are directed to grant family pension and terminal benefits treating the applicant as the dependent of the missing employee as there is no dispute that she is the legally wedded wife of the missing employee. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If an application for compassionate appointment has been moved or is moved by the applicant, the same shall also be considered in accordance with law. No order as to costs. All pending MAs stand disposed of.
20. Resultantly, instant Original Application is allowed. 21 All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
22. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi)
Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)
PM/-
Page 15 of 15