THE HON’BLE MR JUSTISCE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.20005 of 2007 ORDER: The husband of the petitioner, by name, K. Ramesh, was employed as a Driver in the A.P.S.R.T.C. The petitioner states that he was missing from 03-04-1992 onwards. She submitted a complaint in the V-Town Police Station, Nellore, on 09- 06-1992. FIR No.115 of 1992 was registered. After conducting necessary search, the Police issued proceedings dated 30-07-1992, stating that the husband of the petitioner is not traceable. Petitioner has also filed O.S.No.267 of 2006 in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, impleading her children as defendants; for a declaration, that her husband, Ramesh, is no more. The suit was decreed, ex pare, on 11-07-2006. The petitioner approached the Depot Manager, Nellore-II Depot, the 2nd respondent herein, with a prayer to extend the death/retirement benefits of her husband. The 2nd respondent issued reply dated 23-04-2007, stating that permissible benefits have already been extended to the petitioner. He expressed his inability to extend any further benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. She submits that the order of removal dated 16-10-1992, was passed ex parte, that too, against a person, who is presumed to have died. She contends that in view of the decree passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, her husband is presumed to have died, while in service, and that she is entitled to be extended the death/retirement benefits. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit, admitting the fact that Mr.Ramesh was employed as a Driver. It is stated that on noticing that he was unauthorisedly absent, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, by issuing the charge-sheet, dated 27-04- 1992, and ultimately an order of removal was passed on 26-09-1992. It is stated that the petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs.41,520/-, towards Provident Fund, and Rs.8,239/-, under S.R.B.S. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Even now, the petitioner is not certain, as to whether her husband is alive, or no more. It may be true, that the petitioner submitted a complaint, way back on 09-06- 1992, and a suit in the year 2006; and the Police stated that the individual is not traceable. The Civil Court declared that he is no more, on the basis of a report dated 30-07-1992, issued by the Police. Things would have been different altogether, had it been a case, where the respondents did not pass any orders, in relation to the services of the employee, and a declaration is given by the Civil Court, before any such proceedings are initiated. The record discloses that, much before the petitioner sought for a declaration in the Civil Court, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings, and the same culminated in the order of removal, dated 26-09-1992. With that order, the relationship of employer and employee ceases to exist. Unless and until that order is set aside, the petitioner cannot claim any benefits from the respondents. In that view of the matter, no relief can be extended to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. This order, however, does not preclude the petitioner from prosecuting such remedies, as are open to her, in law. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-08-2008. KO