Judgment : 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.3703 of 2003. On abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and re-numbered as W.P.No.17373 of 2007. 2. The petitioner is the wife of one M.Muthu Chidambaram, who joined as a Sanitary Supervisor on 07.05.1990 in the then Palladam Town Panchayat. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband was suffering from mal nutrition related diabetics mellitus and therefore, he had to take frequent leave and ultimately, he died on 14.08.1998. 4. The Assistant Director of Town Panchayat, the second respondent herein passed the impugned order, dated 26.01.2003, stating that the husband of the petitioner absented from 30.12.1991 to 03.11.1992 and joined duty on 04.11.1992 and thereafter, he did not report to duty and died on 14.08.1998. Since he continuously absented for more than 5 years, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension and other terminal benefits. 5. The petitioner has filed this Original Application to quash the aforesaid order dated 26.01.2003 of the second respondent. 6. A reply affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that the husband of the petitioner absented for duty for more than five years. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard both sides. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 and 2, the impugned order dated 26.01.2003 is liable to be set aside. He has brought to my notice the details of the work done by the petitioner, as stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit. According to him, as per the counter affidavit, the husband of the petitioner could not be said to have been absented for more than 5 years continuously. Even assuming that he absented for more than 5 years before his death, in the absence of any disciplinary action resulting in removal of service, the terminal benefits cannot be denied to the petitioner due to the death of her husband. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Municipality sought to sustain the impugned order based on the counter affidavit. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 11. 9. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the 4th respondent Municipality sought to sustain the impugned order based on the counter affidavit. 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side. 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Executive Officer of the Palladam Town Panchayat regularised the leave of the husband of the petitioner upto 26.10.1995 as per paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit. In this context, it is relevant to extract the following passages found in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit:- "3. ...Thiru M.Muthuchidambaram had gone on leave frequently without prior permission of the Executive Officer. Later on his leave was regularised by the Executive Officer. During his period of service from 07.05.1980 to 26.10.95, most of days, he was in leave (statement enclosed). He died on 14.08.98 at Government Hospital Palladam (copy of the death certificate enclosed)." (Emphasis added) 12. Furthermore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the details relating to attendance of the husband of the petitioner as found in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit reveals that he was not continuously absent for 5 years before the date of death. 13. The following passages found in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit are extracted hereunder:- "5. It is submitted that further the applicant sent an application on 24.02.2003 stating that her husband applied medical leave from 26.10.94 to 8.8.95 and joined duty on 9.8.95. The Executive Officer has replied in his letter that Thiru.Muthuchidambaram joined duty on 9.8.95 and after 23 days he was absent from duty voluntarily. According to the attendance registers the deceased employee attended duty only on the following period. From 1.1.93 to 3.2.93 From 25.5.93 to 31.12.93 From 17.4.94 to 23.5.94 From 28.6.94 to 1.7.94 From 6.8.94 to 5.9.94 From 20.10.94 to 25.10.94 From 9.8.95 to 25.10.95 14. From a perusal of paragraph 5 along with paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the husband of the petitioner could not be stated to have absented for 5 years continuously before his death particularly, when his leave was regularised upto 1995. From a perusal of paragraph 5 along with paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the husband of the petitioner could not be stated to have absented for 5 years continuously before his death particularly, when his leave was regularised upto 1995. Hence, the conclusion of the second respondent that the husband of the petitioner absented for more than 5 years continuously has no basis and hence the same is liable to be interfered with. Further, admittedly, no disciplinary action was taken against the employee for the alleged absence and in the absence of dismissal from service, pursuant to disciplinary action, he was in service at the time of his death. Hence, the denial of terminal benefits is illegal. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into account paragraphs 3 as well as 5 of the counter affidavit of respondents 1 and 2, the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 26.01.2003 is quashed and the writ petition stands allowed. A direction is issued to the second respondent to send appropriate pension proposal including the proposal for DCRG and other benefits to the 5th respondent viz., the Director of Local Fund Audit in respect of the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner, who died on 14.08.1998, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such proposal, the 5th respondent is directed to authorise pension, DCRG and other benefits on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. No costs.