IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4132 of 2009 Date of Decision: March 18, 2009 Ram Kala Devi .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS Union of India & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. S.N. Yadav, Advocate, for the petitioner. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing Orders dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-7) and Order dated 11.2.2009 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Director General, BSF (Pay & Accounts) Pushpa Bhawan, New Delhi. Relevant portion of Order, Annexure P-7, reads as under:- “With reference to above, it is intimated that as per copy of court order, received vide your letter under reference, proceeding is not yet finalized by the court but same is kept pending till accused namely Singh Ram surrenders or is arrested by the police. Hence, as per CCS Pension Rule-8 and GOID OM No.50/2/59 Ests. (A) dated 7th October 1959 and Family Pension Rule 54 (HC A to C) of 1964, you are not entitled for family pension till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him.” CWP No.4132 of 2009 [2] Order, Annexure P-8 (relevant portion) reads as under:- “With reference to above, it is intimated that it is not a normal case of missing whereas Singh Ram has deserted himself after making a criminal case i.e. murder of his son. As per GOID OM No.50/2/59 Ests (A) dated 7th October 1959, future good conduct is an implied condition of the grant of every pension. As per court order, received from you, proceeding is not yet finalized by the court but same is kept pending till accused namely Singh Ram surrenders or is arrested by the police. Hence, case will be processed after finalization of court case.” Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is entitled to continuance of pension in regard to service rendered by Ex-Naik Singh Ram. It has been contended that Singh Ram has not been heard since last seven years and therefore, is required to be presumed as dead. Under the circumstances, the petitioner who is wife of Singh Ram, is entitled to payment of pension. I have considered the contention in the context of the facts of the present case. It transpires that Singh Ram was serving in BSF, however, sought voluntary retirement on 15.6.1993. It seems that Singh Ram murdered his son. FIR No.110 dated 3.6.2001 has been lodged under Section 302 IPC with Police Station, Khol, District Rewari on the statement of the petitioner. After committing murder, Singh Ram absconded from the process of law and finally had to be declared Proclaimed Offender. The Trial Court has consigned the file to record room, to be restored as and when Singh Ram surrenders or is arrested by the police CWP No.4132 of 2009 [3] and produced in Court. It is thus clear that it is not a case of missing person, rather a case of intentional and conscious act of Singh Ram of absconding from the process of law after committing a serious crime such as murder of his own son. Singh Ram was required to be tried by Court of law, however, he absconded and had been declared Proclaimed Offender and the file has been consigned to the record room. The denial of pension to the petitioner is in view of the rules cited in the orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to justify the stand of the petitioner in asking for pension in such circumstances. I am of the opinion that since it is a conscious act of Singh Ram of absconding from the process of law, therefore, he cannot be declared presumed dead. The petition is dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) March 18, 2009 JUDGE avin