Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ku Rameshwari Singh vs South East Central Railway on 3 December, 2025
1 OA No.203/367/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
Circuit Sitting : Bilaspur
Original Application No.203/367/2022
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 03rd day of December, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ku. Rameshwari Singh, D/o Mohan Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o
Quarter No.2/K, Street No.18, Sector-6, A Market, Bhilai, District - Durg
(C.G.).
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Achyut Tiwari)
Versus
1. Union of India through Division Manager Railway, South East Central
Railway, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) - 495001.
2. General Manager, South East Central Railway, RTS Colony, Railway
Colony, Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001.
3. Senior Personnel Officer, Office of Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
South East Central Railway, DRM Complex, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)
490042.
- Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Siddharth Rathod)
(Date of reserving order : 13.11.2025)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, Member (J).
The applicant is aggrieved that she has not been paid retiral dues and family pension of her missing father. She is also seeking direction to the Page 1 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 2 OA No.203/367/2022 respondents to provide her appointment on compassionate ground. The applicant is further challenging the order of removal of her father.
2. The applicant has sought for the following reliefs in this Original Application:
"8.1 That, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the applicant. 8.2 That, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A/12), in the interest of justice.
8.3 That, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to disburse the settlement amount, family pension and other monetary benefits in favour of the applicant and also to provide compassionate appointment to the applicant, in accordance with law. 8.4 That, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8.5 That, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to award/grant cost of the application to the applicant.
8.6 That, this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the impugned termination memorandum w.e.f.27/03/2006 (part of Annexure A/15) in the interest of justice."
3. The applicant has stated in her Original Application that her father was an employee of the respondent department, who is missing since 15.04.2004. Missing compliant of her father was lodged at Police Station Ganj, District Raipur on 23.01.2005, which was registered as missing person No.03/05.
Page 2 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 3 OA No.203/367/2022 3.1 The applicant and her family members preferred a Civil Suit No.118- A/2014 before the First Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur (C.G.) to declare Shri Mohan Singh dead, which was dismissed on the ground that the family members could not file any document establishing their relation with Mohan Singh.
3.2 Against the order dated 29.07.2015, the family members preferred First Appeal No.3-A/2016 before the 9th Additional District Judge, Raipur (C.G.), which was also dismissed on 22.07.2016 (Annexure A-3) on the ground that person cannot be declared dead by the Civil Court, it can only be presumed under Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act. Thereafter, Second Appeal No.594/2019 was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, which was withdrawn on 03.09.2019 (Annexure A-4) with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
3.3 The Municipal Corporation, Raipur has issued a family succession certificate (Annexure A-5) in favour of the applicant and her family members stating that Mohan Singh is missing/trackless since 15.04.2004 and his dependents are entitled for the monetary benefits. Page 3 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 4 OA No.203/367/2022 3.4 Siblings of the applicant got married meanwhile and are residing separately from the applicant. During the pendency of this Original Application, mother of the applicant had left for her heavenly abode and, therefore, now the applicant, being unmarried daughter is legally entitled to get the relief, as sought for in this Original Application. 3.5 Earlier, the applicant had preferred an Original Application No.203/871/2021 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.09.2021 (Annexure A-10) with a direction to the respondents to decide the applicant's representation within two months. In response, vide communication dated 19.01.2022 (Annexure A-12), the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant stating that in the absence of the specific orders of the Court of law, the settlement dues of Shri Mohan Singh cannot be processed. It has also been stated that Shri Mohan Singh has since been removed on 27.03.2006 and, therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be provided to the applicant.
4. In their reply, the respondents have stated that Shri Mohan Singh was absent from the Railway service w.e.f.30.03.2004 and continued to remain absent till the issue of major penalty chargesheet on 28.10.2004 and also Page 4 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 5 OA No.203/367/2022 issuance of punishment on 27.03.2006. The declaration suit filed by the mother of the applicant was dismissed by the Civil Judge Class-II as she failed to establish herself as wife of Shri Mohan Singh. Ven the 1 st appeal was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Raipur. 4.1 The ex-employee was removed from Railway service on 27.03.2006 without any pensionary benefits and mother of the applicant has not been recognized as the wife of Shri Mohan Singh by the competent Court of Law. The family of the deceased employee has to submit closure report of non tracing case of missing employee from the respective area of police authority thereafter a missing case is to be processed.
5. The applicant has filed an MA No.1310/2025 for taking document on record vide which she has filed a document received under RTI dated 18.05.2025 in regard to missing person report No.03/2005 registered at Police Station Ganj. It has been stated therein that even after more than 13 years, the whereabouts of the Mohan Singh could not be traced, and accordingly, in the year 2018, a missing person diary was closed by filing proceedings under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1873. Page 5 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 6 OA No.203/367/2022
6. On 24.04.2025, when the matter was listed for final hearing, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to call for the original copies of order of termination dated 27.03.2006 and nomination declaration in the Railways Provident Fund made on 11.12.1991 by the deceased employee. In response, the respondents have filed an MA No.1605/2025 expressing their inability that the nomination application dated 11.12.1991 executed by the deceased employee could not be traced out and obtained from the available official record, as at the time of execution of the said nomination, Raipur Division was not in existence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
8. A copy of the nomination form filed at Annexure A-14 clearly states that in the year 1991, the deceased employee had declared the mother of the applicant as his wife as also siblings of the applicant and the applicant as dependent family members in the said Provident Fund Nomination form. This document indicates the receiving and endorsement of S.E. Rly, Raipur, authenticity of which is not disputed by the respondents rather they dispute to recognize the applicant as daughter of Shri Mohan Singh on the pretext Page 6 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 7 OA No.203/367/2022 of order passed in civil suit. We may note that the proceedings before the Civil Court were with respect to declare Shri Mohan Singh dead as he was missing since 2004 while in the present case, the issue before us is with respect to entitlement of the applicant to receive pensionary benefits of her father and family pension as also compassionate appointment being the unmarried daughter of Shri Mohan Singh. The claim of the applicant has to be substantiated on the basis of available documents, which has duly been produced by the applicant at Annexure A-14 and the same is not in dispute. Non-availability of documents with respect to service record of Shri Mohan Singh cannot forfeit the legal right of the applicant especially when there is no claimant other than the applicant, who claims to be the daughter of Shri Mohan Singh.
9. A similar controversy came up before this Tribunal in Original Application No.202/435/2019 in which the entitlement of the applicant therein to receive family pension etc., on account of missing of her husband since long was considered and decided by this Tribunal. This Tribunal vide order dated 08.11.2024 in the aforesaid OA has observed as under:
"6. In para 4.4. of their reply, the respondents have conceded the fact regarding the missing status of applicant's husband. They have admitted Page 7 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 8 OA No.203/367/2022 that the son of the applicant submitted an application to PWI Gwalior, which was received on 09.08.2013. Therefore, the question of applicant's husband participating in the disciplinary proceedings does not arise once it was within the knowledge of the respondents that the employee went missing. Now, the sole question for consideration before this Tribunal is as to whether the action taken by the respondents against the missing delinquent employee and denying the applicant her legitimate right to receive the family pension along with other dues.
7. In order to appreciate this issue, it is necessary to understand the scheme of sections 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Sections 107 and 108 read as follows:
"Section 107: - Burden of proving death of person known to have been alive within thirty years.- When the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is shown that he was alive within thirty years, the burden of proving that he is dead is on the person who affirms it. Section 108:- Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.- (provided that when) the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is (shifted to) the person who affirms it.
8. Though the provisions of sections 107 and 108 are very clear as to the rising of presumption, these sections do not throw any light upon the date on which a person can be presumed to be dead. In other words, the doubt or dilemma that arises in cases of this nature is as to the date of death of the person in respect of whom the presumption is raised. The moment it is established that a person has not been heard of for 7 years, the presumption of death arises. But the presumption under the Act is confined only to the factum of death and not to the actual date of death.
9. Admittedly, there are instructions in the form of Rule 51 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and since they are statutory rules, they are binding upon the respondents. The Rule 51 of the said rules reads as under:
"51. Entitlements of family of a missing Government servant or pensioner or family pensioner.-
(1)(a) In the case of a Government servant who goes missing, family pension shall be payable to a member or members of the family at a rate specified in sub-rule (2) of rule 50, and in the manner and subject to the eligibility conditions as applicable in the case of death of a Government servant during service.Page 8 of 13
ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 9 OA No.203/367/2022
(b) The family pension under clause (a) shall be payable from the date following the date up to which leave was sanctioned to the Government servant before he went missing or from the date up to which pay and allowances have been paid to the Government servant or from the date on which a report has been lodged with the concerned Police Station in the form of First Information Report or a Daily Diary Entry or a General Diary Entry, whichever is the latest. (2)(a) In the case of a pensioner who goes missing, family pension shall be payable to an eligible member or members of the family at a rate specified in sub- rule (2) of rule 50, and in the manner and subject to the eligibility conditions as applicable in the case of death of a pensioner.
(b) The family pension under clause (a) shall be payable from the date following the date up to which pension has been paid to the pensioner who went missing or from the date on which a report was lodged with the concerned Police Station in the form of First Information Report or a Daily Diary Entry or a General Diary Entry, whichever is later.
(3)(a) In the case of a family pensioner who goes missing, family pension shall be payable to a member of the family who is eligible to receive the family pension after the death of the family pensioner, at a rate specified in subrule (2) of rule 50, and in the manner and subject to the eligibility conditions as applicable on death of a family pensioner.
(b) The family pension under clause (a) shall be payable from the date following the date up to which family pension has been paid to the family pensioner before he went missing or from the date on which a report was lodged with the concerned Police Station in the form of First Information Report or a Daily Diary Entry or a General Diary Entry, whichever is later. (4) In the case of a Government servant who goes missing or a retired Government servant who goes missing without receiving the retirement gratuity admissible under sub-rule (1) of Rule 45, the amount of retirement gratuity shall be payable to a member or members of the family in the manner and subject to the conditions applicable in the case of a Government servant who dies after retirement without receiving the retirement gratuity. (5)(a) Claims for payment of family pension and gratuity shall be submitted to the Head of Office by the member or members of the family eligible for family pension and nominees or members of family eligible to receive the amount of gratuity, after a report has been lodged with the concerned Police Station in the form of a First Information Report or a Daily Diary Entry or a General Diary Entry.
(b) The claims shall be accompanied by an Indemnity Bond in Format 8 along with a copy each of the report lodged with the concerned Police Station and the report obtained from the police to the effect that the Government servant or pensioner or family pensioner could not be traced so far despite all efforts made in that regard.
Page 9 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 10 OA No.203/367/2022 (6) In the case of a Government servant referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (1), the pay for family pension and emoluments for retirement gratuity shall be determined in accordance with Explanation-1 below sub-rule (2) of rule 50 and sub-rule (6) of rule 45, respectively, based on the pay and emoluments on the last date on which he was on duty before he went missing or, if he was on leave, the date on which leave sanctioned to him expired.
(7) In the case of a retired Government servant referred to in sub-rule (4) the emoluments for the purpose of retirement gratuity shall be reckoned in accordance with sub-rule (6) of rule 45.
(8)(a) The payment of family pension (including the arrears of family pension for the period from the date specified in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (3), as the case may be, up to the date of commencement of payment of family pension) and the amount of gratuity shall not be made before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of lodging of report with the concerned Police Station:
Provided further that if the payment of gratuity is delayed and the delay is attributable to administrative lapses or reasons, interest shall be payable for the period of delay beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of claim and responsibility shall be fixed for such delayed payment of gratuity, in accordance with rule 65.
(b) In the case of a Government servant referred to in clause (a) of sub-rule (1), death gratuity shall become payable after the death of the Government servant is conclusively established or on expiry of a period of seven years from the date of lodging of the report with the police, whichever is earlier.
(c) The difference between the amount of death gratuity and retirement gratuity shall be paid to the person or persons eligible for payment of death gratuity in accordance with these rules, not later than three months from the date of submission of claim for difference between the amount of death gratuity and retirement gratuity.
(d) If the payment of difference between the amount of death gratuity and retirement gratuity is delayed and the delay is attributable to administrative lapses or reasons, interest shall be payable for the period of delay beyond a period of six months from the date of submission of claim for difference between the amount of death gratuity and retirement gratuity. (9) In addition to the family pension and retirement gratuity, the family of the Government servant shall also be entitled to receive arrears of pay and allowances or leave salary, if any, cash equivalent to leave salary and amount available in the General Provident Fund Account of the Government servant in accordance with the rules as applicable to a Government servant who dies during service.
(10) Nothing in this rule shall apply in the case of a Government servant or a pensioner or a family pensioner who disappears and against whom allegation of Page 10 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 11 OA No.203/367/2022 fraud or embezzlement or any other crime is under investigation or who has been charged or convicted for such crimes.
(11) No payment under this rule shall be authorised to be paid to a person or persons other than a member or members of the family eligible to receive that payment."
10. The above Rule clinches the issue with respect to the claim of the applicant in case of a missing employee. Even if there are no instructions in the Railway Services Pension Rules as how to deal with in such cases, we are of the view that the provisions contained under CCS (Pension) Rules will be applicable in the absence of any specific provision under the Railway Rules. Apart from this, Para 4 of the Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2013 clearly states that in the case of a missing employee/pensioner/family pensioner, the family can apply for the grant of family pension, amount of salary due, leave encashment due and the amount of GPF and gratuity to the Head of Office of the organisation where the employee/pensioner had last served, six months after lodging of Police report. The fact regarding filing of FIR is not disputed. The said Office Memorandum clearly entitles the applicant to claim family pension and other retiral dues of her husband after a period of six months from the date of lodging of missing report before the Police. The respondents have contended that the Police has not filed closure report and they are still looking for the missing person. This plea of the respondents does not merit credence in the light of the above discussions. Therefore, we hold that the decision to terminate the applicant's husband ex parte when the fact that he was missing was in the knowledge of the respondents is legally unsustainable. It is relevant to note that husband of the applicant is still missing in Police records after seven years. Therefore, we are of considered view that the applicant is entitled for all death-cum- retiral benefits of her husband including family pension.
11. We direct the respondents to grant all the benefits applicable to the applicant in terms of Rule 51 of the CCS (Pension) Rules coupled with the Office Memorandum issued on 24.06.2012, within a period of sixty days (60 days) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
7. In the present case also, enquiry conducted against the missing person is not justified when it was within the knowledge of the respondents that the employee is missing and, as such, we declare the entire disciplinary Page 11 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 12 OA No.203/367/2022 proceedings as null and void and hence we quash the punishment order imposed on the father of the applicant. The case of the applicant is even on better footing to that of applicant in OA 202/435/2019 as in the present case the proceedings of missing person viz; Shri Mohan Singh has been filed by the police authorities under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. As observed in OA No.202/435/2019 (supra) that in case of a missing employee/pensioner/family pensioner, the family is entitled for grant of family pension etc. in the light of Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2013 issued by the Department of Pension & Pensioners' Welfare coupled with the instructions contained under Rule 51 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, we are of the considered view that the present applicant is also entitled for similar relief. We also observe that now there is no impediment for the respondents to grant the relief to the applicant after closure of investigation of missing complaint under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we allow this Original Application and direct the respondents to release the entire retiral dues of Shri Mohan Singh in favour of the applicant, within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The applicant shall be authorized family pension along with arrears immediately from the date when the proceedings under Page 12 of 13 ANUPAM2025.12.03 16:44:21 MISHRA +05'30' 13 OA No.203/367/2022 Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were filed by the police authorities, i.e. in 2018, within next 90 days. The respondents are also directed to consider the applicant for compassionate appointment, being the unmarried daughter of Shri Mohan Singh and if she is otherwise found eligible, issue necessary order in her favour as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months. There shall be no order as to cost.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 13 of 13
ANUPAM2025.12.03
16:44:21
MISHRA +05'30'