Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2001) 08 SC CK 0082

Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Geeta Devi

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 9 August 2001 · Citation: AIR 2001 SC 1691 : (2001) AIRSCW 1744 : (2001) LabIC 1733 : (2001) 4 PLJR 1 : (2001) 3 SCALE 442 : (2001) 4 SCC 289 : (2001) SCC(L&S) 694 : (2001) 3 Supreme 451 : (2001) 2 UJ 1170

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Rajendra Babu, J · Doraiswamy Raju, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appeal No. 9137 of 1995

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 336 words

S. Rajendra Babu J.-Husband of the respondent, Bhimeent Sore, was appointed on casual basis from 24-9-1979. Thereafter he was appointed on temporary basis from 8-12-1980 under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It appears that thereafter he remained unauthorisedly absent. It appears that he was admitted in the hospital on 4-4-1981 and discharged on 14-4-1981. He attended his duty up to 21-5-1981. Thereafter he remained absent. Inasmuch as the said employee absented from his duty without being permitted by the necessary authority, the appellants initiated proceedings as contemplated under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules and subsequently discharged him from service w.e.f. 23-9-1982. Thereafter an original application was filed by the respondent for various reliefs, namely, arrears of salary, family pension, payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity and group insurance and to give suitable employment to her, as he is deemed to have died in harness. The basis upon which the respondent claimed the said reliefs is that her husband disappeared and remained missing for more than seven years and he should be presumed to be dead.

2.

The Tribunal by an order made on 27-10-1994 directed to give whatever dues were payable to the respondent treating her husband to have died on 16-4-1988 and also directed to give a suitable employment to her in Class IV as a dependant of the employee who died in harness and in addition the payment of compensation of Rs 50,000. This order is assailed in this appeal.

3.

It is clear from the narration of the facts that the services of the husband of the respondent were terminated w.e.f. 23-9-1982. If that is so, question of giving any other relief as sought for by the respondent would not arise at all. The Tribunal ignoring these aspects of the case has given the relief in question, which we think is not in order. Therefore, the order made by the Tribunal is set aside and the application filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. The appeal is allowed accordingly.