Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.M Kunjumol vs The Principal General Manager on 15 November, 2012
O.A No. 102/12
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. NO. 102 OF 2012
Thursday, this the 15th day of November, 2012
CORAM:
HON'BLE Dr. K.B.S. RAJAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
K.M Kunjumol
Aged 44, W/o.K.V Lal
Puthenparambilchira
Mampuzhakeri, Ramankari P.O
Alappuzha - Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil)
Versus
1. The Principal General Manager
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Kottayam - 686 001
2. The Chief General Manager
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 033
3. The Chairman & Managing Director
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited
Corporate Office
Statesman House, New Delhi - 110 001 - Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Johnson Gomez)
The application having been heard on 15.11.2012, the Tribunal on the
same day delivered the following:
O R D E R
HON'BLE MS.K NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking family pension and compassionate appointment.
2. The applicant avers that her husband Shri.K.V Lal working as Group D under the first respondent went missing from 21.05.1994. Due to the mental shock O.A No. 102/12 sustained by her, she went into depression and was under treatment till 2002 (Annexure A1(a). Her two minor children were aged 7 years and 2 years in 1994. As there was no one to help her, she could not take suitable action to claim the benefits arising out of her husband being missing from the respondents. In 2002, she was advised to file a Police case. Accordingly, Crime No.109/2002 was registered and forwarded to Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary. She produced a copy of the letter of the Sub Inspector Ramankary Police Station as Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-2(a). According to her, the Sub Inspector certified her husband as missing (Annexure A-3). There after, on 12.12.2006, she submitted her Annexure A-4 representation to the respondents. She received Annexure A-5 reply from the respondents pointing out delay on her part in filing the FIR and instructing her to send a copy of the FIR. As there was no further action on the part of the respondents, the applicant submitted her Annexure A-6 representation in 2008. The respondents then intimated her vide Annexure A-7 that her husband was removed from service on 24.05.1995 and hence her request for family pension could not be acceded to in accordance with Rule 24 of the CCS Pension Rules. Aggrieved by this decision of the respondents, the applicant has filed this Original Application.
3. The respondents contested the Original Application and filed reply statement. They pointed out that the Original Application is barred by limitation and the necessary parties were not impleaded. They submitted that the applicant's husband Shri K.V Lal was on Extra Ordinary Leave on Medical Certificate from 19.05.1994. Thereafter, he did not join duty and hence was treated as unauthorizedly absent from 03.07.1994. The registered letter sent to him to join duty on 11.07.1994 was returned undelivered with the postal remarks, "unclaimed". Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and the enquiry had to be conducted ex-parte as his address was noted as "unknown" on the registered letters sent to him. Finally, he was removed from service with effect from 24.05.1995 (Annexure A-8). Hence, the request O.A No. 102/12 of the applicant for family pension could not be entertained favourably, no pension is payable for an official who is removed from service, as removal from service results in forfeiture of past service as per Rule 24 of CCS Pension Rules. Moreover, the respondents pointed out that Annexure A-3 indicates that a private complaint was filed as CMP No.2957/2002 of the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary under Section 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, Crime No. 109/2002 was registered when the said complaint was forwarded to the Station House Officer, Ramankary, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant did not produce a copy of the complaint filed before the Judicial I Class Magistrate Court, Ramankary, which resulted in the registration of Crime No.109/2002. According to the respondents the applicant has willfully omitted to produce the complaint, as the same would indicate that the applicant's husband was not missing at least till the date of occurrence in the said crime, on the other hand he is an accused in the crime. Crime No.109/2002 was registered alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 366 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the applicant's husband Sri K.V Lal. According to the respondents, such a case cannot be converted as a man missing case, when the Police ultimately state that the case is included in the UN List and the accused is missing. The referal report stated to have been submitted on 30.02.2003 is also not produced. The respondents therefore, submitted that in the totallity of all facts and circumstances of the case indicates that the local police was colluding with the applicant, by issuing Annexure A-3, for getting the benefits illegally from the respondents.
4. The applicant filed rejoinder and averred that there is no limitation involved in this case as the matter relates to grant of pensionary benefits. She further stated that the registered letter dated 11.07.1994 sent by the respondents was not received by her and hence she was totally unaware of the proceedings which resulted in the removal of her husband from service. Her husband could not defend the case as he O.A No. 102/12 was missing from 21.05.1994 onwards.
5. Arguments were heard and records perused.
6. A perusal of Annexure A-3 clearly indicates that a case was registered under Crime No.109/2002 under Section 366 and 379 of Indian Penal Code. As contended by the respondents FIR was never lodged to report that Shri K.V Lal, husband of the applicant was missing in 1994 or later. The Sub Inspector of Police, Ramankary on 08.06.2006 has given a report which states that he made effective enquiry to trace the whereabouts of Shri K.V Lal but no clue could be obtained and hence he is a missing person. This report was based on the case registered as Crime No.109/02. In other words reporting that Shri K.V Lal was missing was merely an offshoot of the case registered as Crime No.109/02. In the Original Application the applicant has clearly stated that her husband had forcibly taken her sister. Hence the question arises of the genuineness of Shri.K.V lal being treated as one who is missing. In fact, he is arrayed as the accused in Crime No.109/02. Moreover, Shri.K.V Lal, the applicant's husband was removed from service as early as in 1995. Therefore, the respondents cannot be faulted for not acceding to the request of the applicant for payment of family pension and consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds on the twin factors of her inability to show her husband as a missing person and to make any appeal against the penalty advice of removal imposed on the applicant in time.
7. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any merit in the Original Application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.
(Dated, the 15th day of November, 2012)
K. NOORJEHAN Dr. K.B.S. RAJAN
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
sv