Authorities must decide terminal benefit claims of missing employees’ heirs through reasoned and speaking orders.

The applicants are the sons of late Ganga Ram, who was employed as a Welder (Skilled) at the Small Arms Factory, Kanpur

Ganga Ram went missing during service on March 9, 2012, and a police final report dated July 1, 2013, confirmed he was untraceable

The first nominee (the applicants' mother) died on January 9, 2015, leaving the applicants as the entitled legal heirs

Despite acknowledging pending dues (DCRG, PLB, Earned Leave, and medical reimbursement) in 2021 and the applicants completing all required formalities including indemnity bonds, the respondents failed to release the payments

The applicants filed the present O.A. following multiple unaddressed representations made between 2024 and 2025

1. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to release the outstanding terminal benefits and DCRG of the missing employee to his legal heirs after the completion of requisite formalities

2. Whether the Tribunal should direct the competent authority to decide the pending claim within a stipulated timeframe

The court proceeded on the principles of service law regarding the disbursement of terminal benefits (DCRG and other dues) to the nominees or legal heirs of a missing government servant, contingent upon the submission of a police non-traceable report and indemnity bonds

It further applied the administrative law principle requiring authorities to dispose of claims through a "reasoned and speaking order" in accordance with law

The Tribunal examined the timeline of events, noting that the employee's disappearance was legally documented via a police final report in 2013 and that the primary nominee had since deceased

It observed that the respondents had already identified specific pending amounts in their communication dated January 28, 2021, and that the applicants had complied with the requested formalities

While the respondents argued that the matter was "under process" and requested more time for instructions, the Tribunal found that keeping the O.A. pending would serve no purpose

The court determined that the appropriate remedy was to mandate a time-bound administrative review of the applicants' grievance, ensuring that any procedural gaps regarding documentation are addressed promptly

It directed the respondents to process the claim based on existing documents and, if further documentation is required, to notify the applicants within one month

Subsequently, the respondents must decide the claim by passing a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving the necessary documents

No costs were awarded