A dismissed employee’s heirs cannot claim pensionary benefits under the missing-person policy.

Indrabhan Singh, a Class IV employee in the Pratapgarh Collectorate, had been untraceable since 8 May 2022.

His wife and son challenged the Collector’s order dated 31 December 2024 dismissing him for unauthorised absence, alleging that the disciplinary proceedings were ex parte and that a required newspaper publication had not been made.

They also sought consideration of claims for salary and service benefits, family pension, and compassionate appointment.

The State submitted that Singh had a history of unauthorised absence and was an accused in a criminal case in which charges had been framed; it further stated that disciplinary proceedings were conducted, a show-cause notice was published in a newspaper, and no reply was received.

The Court accepted that the inquiry had proceeded ex parte after the employee failed to participate and that the dismissal order followed.

1. Whether the dismissal of the missing employee for unauthorised absence was liable to be quashed on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted ex parte.

2. Whether the employee’s legal heirs were entitled to pensionary or other service benefits under the Government Order dated 13 April 2017 despite his dismissal.

3. Whether the authorities should be directed to decide the petitioners’ representations concerning service benefits and compassionate appointment.

The petitioners relied on Chapter III, Rule 18 of the Financial Handbook, Volume II (Parts II–IV), the U.P. Punishment and Appeal Rules, 1999, and the Government Order dated 13 April 2017 concerning benefits for a missing employee.

The judgment does not set out or interpret the text of those provisions, cite any precedent, or formulate a general rule governing missing employees’ benefits.

Its decision rests on the case-specific conclusion that Singh had been dismissed for unauthorised absence following disciplinary proceedings in which the authorities had taken steps to secure his participation, including newspaper publication of the show-cause notice.

The Court noted that Singh was untraceable and was also an accused in a criminal case in which a charge sheet had been filed and charges framed.

It found that disciplinary proceedings for absence from duty had been initiated, that an inquiry was completed ex parte after Singh failed to cooperate, and that the show-cause notice was published in a newspaper without any reply being submitted.

In those circumstances, the Court rejected the challenge to the dismissal and held that the petitioners could not obtain pensionary benefits under the cited Government Order because Singh had already been dismissed for unauthorised absence.

The judgment did not separately analyse the requested representations or compassionate appointment.

It declined to quash the dismissal order or grant the requested service and pensionary relief to the petitioners, the legal heirs of the dismissed employee.