A woman’s husband went missing and she was asked to vacate his company quarters, even as the company initiated disciplinary action. The Chhattisgarh High court ruled in the wife’s favour granted her central government pension benefits under CCS rules. Here’s what the case is about:Mr. Vikash, aged 49, faced mental health problems prior to his disappearance. He held the position of senior technician (electrical) at Bhilai Steel Plant (BSP), an enterprise under the Steel Authority of India (SAIL), according to an ET report. His wife registered an FIR with the police on January 14, 2010. She subsequently published a missing person advertisement in the local newspaper on February 18, 2010.
The Station House Officer of Rajhara Police Station subsequently informed the General Manager of BSP about the employee’s disappearance. BSP disregarded Vikash’s missing status and issued a charge-sheet on December 11, 2010, sending it to both his addresses. The documents were returned un-served as he remained untraceable.The ET report said that BSP then proceeded to post hearing notices on their notice board regarding the enquiry committee proceedings. They conducted ex parte proceedings, and the Enquiry Officer submitted an ex parte report on May 12, 2011. Subsequently, BSP’s disciplinary authority issued an order on September 17, 2011, terminating Vikash’s employment and requiring vacation of the company accommodation within 30 days. Through a writ petition, this was challenged – it was later redirected to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).Also Read | Six years after receiving salary arrears, retired employees were told to repay the entire amount – until this Supreme Court ruling changed everythingThe CAT accepted the transferred petition and invalidated the husband’s service termination order. CAT was of the view that despite being informed about Vikash’s missing status, BSP proceeded with a departmental inquiry against him and attempted notice delivery, including posting it on the notice board.CAT reversed the disciplinary authority’s decision to terminate the BSP employee’s service. Additionally, it instructed BSP to provide all consequential benefits to the wife within three months of the order’s communication and ensure the wife and her family retain their company accommodation. Subsequently, SAIL/BSP, Bhilai challenged this CAT ruling in the Chhattisgarh High Court.
Husband missing: Why did Chhattisgarh High Court rule in favour of wife for pension benefits?
On September 22, 2025, the Chhattisgarh High Court ruled in favour of the wife. The court determined that CAT made no legal error in ordering payment of consequential benefits to the wife, given her husband’s disappearance since January 14, 2010. Consequently, she has become eligible for all service-related benefits, including CCS (Central Civil Services) Pension.The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal deliberated on whether a civil court’s declaration would be necessary considering Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.According to the ET report, the relevant provision under Section 108 of the Evidence Act states: “108. Burden of proving that person is alive who has not been heard of for seven years.—Provided that when the question is whether a man is alive or dead, and it is proved that he has not been heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it.“According to the Evidence Act’s Section 108, a presumption of death can be established under specific conditions. The Chhattisgarh High Court indicated that when an individual remains unheard from for seven years by those who would normally have received news of them, a clear conclusion regarding their presumed death can be drawn at the point when the matter is considered.The Supreme Court’s judgement in Ramrati Kuer (AIR 1967 SC 1134) established the principle that an individual who remains unheard of for seven years is presumed dead.Also Read | Income Tax department doubts Rs 10 lakh gift – brother gets tax notice for cash received from sisters; how he appealed & won the caseThe Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 regarding presumed death is essential under Section 108 of the Evidence Act only when the facts are definitive or uncontested.For the present matter, since it is established that the husband has not been heard from for over seven years, a declaration under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act was deemed unnecessary.Reference was made to the Calcutta High Court ruling in Tara Devi and another v. Bank of India 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 5549The Chhattisgarh High Court said: “In view of the aforesaid position and in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramrati Kuer, since the husband of respondent No.1 has not been heard of for more than seven years, he is presumed to be dead.”The High Court also addressed the matter concerning the wife’s legal standing to submit an application to CAT.The Court noted that respondent No.1, being the wife and dependent of the missing BSP employee, relies on his income to support herself and her family.The Court observed that any departmental inquiry leading to termination would directly impact the financial sustenance of the BSP employee’s wife.The Chhattisgarh High Court clarified that the Office Memorandum issued by the Union of India on April 28, 2022 extends its applicability to BSP. The memorandum explicitly states that for government employees governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 who go missing, their families are entitled to receive benefits including salary arrears, family pension, retirement gratuity, and leave encashment. These provisions align with the directives outlined in the Office Memorandum dated June 25, 2013.Additionally, as previously established, her husband was considered deceased under Section 108 of the Evidence Act.Also Read | PPF rules: Why Kerala High Court ordered a mother to return extra interest earned in children’s Public Provident Fund accounts – explained
