S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) (Cav) - Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, assisted by Mr. Om Prakash Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, assisted by Mr. Amit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 12.05.2004 issued by the respondent No. 4, whereby the husband of petitioner No. 1 was illegally and arbitrarily dismissed from service ignoring the fact that the said employee was missing since 03.06.2000 from his company's quarter at Dugda Colony, and in this regard in terms of its judgment & order, the learned court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Munsif, Bokaro has duly held that husband of the petitioner No. 1 has died as having civil death. Further prayer has been made for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground in place of his father, who had met with civil death and also to release all the consequential benefit to the heirs of the deceased employee. It is also prayed to quash the letter dated 15.09.2014 issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the claim of life coverage scheme and employment of petitioner No. 2 was rejected.
(3.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that the husband of the petitioner No. 1, late Amar Lal, was appointed on 10.01.1991 as General Mazdoor at Dugda Coal Washery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. While in service of respondent-company, the husband of petitioner No. 1 went missing since 03.06.2000 from his office quarters at Dugda Colony. After due search made by the petitioner as well as other family members and neighbours, when the whereabouts of the husband of petitioner No. 1 could not be known, the petitioner No. 1 duly informed this fact to respondent No. 4 on 16.07.2001. She also gave information to the local Police Station at Dugda on 03.02.2002 and immediately thereafter, gave second information on 04.02.2002 to respondent No. 4 regarding missing of her husband. In spite of that, the petitioners came to know that a departmental proceeding was initiated against Amar Lal i.e. husband of the petitioner No. 1 and in the said departmental proceeding an order dated 12.05.2004 was passed by the respondent No. 4, whereby the husband of the petitioner No. 1 was dismissed from service, on the ground of his absence since 03.06.2000 from duty without giving any information. The petitioner No. 1 under the impression that her husband had died, since his whereabouts was not known for seven years from the date of his missing, she approached the respondents-authorities to release the arrears of wages, P.F., Gratuity of late Amar Lal and also to consider the case of petitioner No. 2 for employment on compassionate ground. But when no heed was given to her said request, she gave a legal notice dated 17.01.2008 to respondent No. 4 claiming the aforesaid arrears/ payments. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 again made a representation on 15.04.2008 to the respondent No. 4 for providing employment to her but respondent No. 4 vide his letter dated 09.05.2008 informed the petitioner No. 1 that she is not entitled for employment as her husband was dismissed from service of the respondent-company. In the light of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner no. 1 for self and on behalf of all her children, who were minors, filed a Title Suit No. 23 of 2009 in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-cum-Munsif at Bokaro for a declaration that her husband i.e. Amar Lal, who was an employee of the respondent-company, died as having met civil death and for other relief(s). The title suit was duly contested by the respondent-company and the same was finally decreed holding that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 had died a civil death and the suit was also decreed holding that the petitioner No. 1 is entitled for pensionary benefits of his deceased husband in terms of judgment and decree dated 21.01.2012 and 27.01.2012 respectively. After passing of the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner No. 1 made a representation before the respondent No. 4 to release all the benefits payable to her on account of death of her husband. When the respondents-authorities had not given any heed to the petitioner's representation, she again gave another written representation dated 12.12.2012 to the respondent No. 4 along with the claim for appointment of her son, petitioner No. 2, in the respondent-company, on account of death of her husband. The respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 15.09.2014 informed the petitioner No. 1 that her claim for life coverage scheme as well as employment against the death of her husband cannot be considered due to dismissal of his deceased husband from the services of the respondent-company. Hence, this writ petition.;