Mechanical invocation of deemed resignation for unauthorized absence without considering medical grounds and intent is unsustainable.

The applicant is the widow of Late Shri Pritam Kumar, who was appointed as an LDC in the Military Engineer Service (MES) in 1998

Between 2011 and 2012, the deceased employee remained on Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) on medical grounds for 259 days

He subsequently remained absent from duty from July 16, 2012, to January 28, 2019, without sanctioned leave

Invoking DoPT Notification dated March 29, 2012, the respondents approved his "deemed resignation" on January 28, 2019, due to continuous absence exceeding five years

The employee died on February 27, 2019

The applicant’s requests for family pension and terminal benefits were rejected by the respondents on February 19, 2022, and April 5, 2022, on the grounds that under Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, resignation entails forfeiture of past service

1. Whether the administrative authorities were justified in invoking "deemed resignation" without considering the employee's medical history and the involuntary nature of his absence

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to family pension and terminal benefits despite the order of deemed resignation passed shortly before the employee's death

Rule 12(2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, which stipulates that a government servant absent for over five years is deemed to have resigned, provided they are given a reasonable opportunity to explain

Rule 26 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, which states that resignation entails forfeiture of past service

the precedent in Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead) v. DTC, which held that while family pension might be inadmissible upon resignation, legal heirs remain entitled to gratuity and leave encashment under specific circumstances

The Tribunal observed that the deceased employee had a documented history of serious ailments, having availed 259 days of EOL on medical certificates prior to his prolonged absence

The court inferred that there was no intent to abandon service; rather, the absence was a result of medical compulsions and deteriorated health

It found that the respondents acted in a "mechanical manner" by failing to examine the representations regarding the employee's illness before passing the deemed resignation order

The Tribunal distinguished this case from Ashok Kumar Dabas because the "intention" to resign was not directly attributable to the husband, as his absence was forced by illness leading to his eventual death

the administrative decision failed to account for the "exceptional circumstances" or the "compelling reasons" behind the absence

The court directed the respondents to re-examine the matter and pass a reasoned, speaking order regarding the deemed resignation and the grant of family pension and gratuity with interest

The order must be implemented within 12 weeks of receipt

The O.A. was disposed of with liberty to the applicant to approach the forum again if grievances remain