IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1018 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 25/03/2008 in WP NO : 22768 OF 2000 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Officer-In-Charge, Madras Regiment, Post Bag No.1, Wellingtion(nilgiris) -643231 2 The Chief Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Drowpathi Ghat, Alahabad, Uttar Pradesh, India ..... APPELLANTS AND Appapuram Samrajyam W/o Nageswara Rao, R/o. Vemure Post and Mandal Guntur District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants :(SC FOR ADDL.CENT RAL GOVT )C.VANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.V.MALLIK The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1018 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by an order dated 25th March 2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No.22768 of 2000, this appeal has been filed. The facts giving rise to the litigation, in a nutshell, are as under: Sepoy Nageswara Rao, husband of the respondent, was on leave with eﬀect from 26th August 1982 to 26th September 1982. Thus, he was to report for duty on 27th September 1982, but he did not report for duty on that day or even thereafter, after having left his residence. Whereabouts of Sri Nageswara Rao were not known to anybody, and, therefore, the respondent ﬁled O.S.No.19 of 1996 in the Court of District Munsif, Tenali, seeking appropriate declaration to the eﬀect that her husband Sri Nageswara Rao had expired, since he was missing for more than seven years, and the said suit was decreed on 18th July 1996. The respondent also made an application for pension, etc., as Sri Nageswara Rao was presumed to have expired by virtue of decree dated 18th July 1996. Instead of giving pension, plea was raised by the appellants that service of Sri Nageswara Rao had been terminated by an order dated 11th November 1992. It was also informed to the respondent that no F.I.R. on the subject was ﬁled by her and therefore there was no presumption regarding death of Sri Nageswara Rao. In the aforesaid circumstances, writ petition was ﬁled by the respondent, which has been allowed, and the learned Single Judge has directed that the appellants should start paying family pension to the respondent within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order, as Sri Nageswara Rao is presumed to have expired. It has been submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the appellants that the respondent had ﬁled First Information Report on 21st May 1992. Possibly, for that reason, some of the conditions incorporated in the relevant rules had not been complied with, and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any pension, especially when order with regard to dismissal of Sri Nageswara Rao had been passed on 11th November 1992. From the additional material paper, which has been ﬁled before this Court, we ﬁnd that in fact, either in 1987 or in 1988, the respondent had started making grievance with regard to her missing husband. From the letter dated 23rd December 1988 written by the Superintendent of Police, Guntur, to the Secretary, Major Sainikodyogula Sankshema Sangam, Tenali, that inspite of all possible eﬀorts made by his Constabulary, the whereabouts of Sri Nageswara Rao could not be traced. In the said letter, reference of letter dated 21st November 1988 has been given by the Superintendent of Police. This denotes that the respondent had already made suﬃcient eﬀorts and must have also given intimation to the Police with regard to missing of her husband, but she might not have lodged a formal complaint – F.I.R. In our opinion, this mistake on the part of the respondent, not a very literate lady, cannot deprive her of getting family pension. The reason for dismissal of Sepoy Sri Nageswara Rao appears to be his unauthorized absence. We note the fact that ultimately it is presumed that he has expired and by virtue of the said presumption it cannot be said that he unauthorisedly remained absent. A Sepoy, who has expired cannot be expected to report for duty. Looking to the above facts, we ﬁrmly believe that the learned single Judge has taken absolutely just view especially when there is a decree of a competent Court to the eﬀect that Sepoy Sri Nageswara Rao is presumed to have expired. We do not see any reason to interfere with the just and proper order passed by the learned Single Judge, and, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 23rd September 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr