The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur, has dismissed a writ petition seeking pension and retiral benefits, holding that a government employee who remained absent from duty for over two decades cannot revive a stale service claim under the extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Anand Sharma dismissed the petition filed by a former Lower Division Clerk (LDC), who claimed that in the absence of a formal termination order, his service should be deemed to have continued until his superannuation in 2010. The petitioner had sought pensionary benefits on the basis of his service between 1973 and 1987.
Rejecting the claim, the court noted that the petitioner ceased attending duties in 1987 and remained completely silent for 26 years, raising his first claim only after retirement. Rejecting the argument that the cause of action arose upon superannuation, the court held that a vigilant employee would have sought redressal at the time of alleged deprivation of service rights.
“The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be converted into a forum for revival of stale claims founded on prolonged indolence and neglect,” the court observed. The court held that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay alone.
On merits, the High Court accepted the State’s contention that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned service, and ruled that abandonment does not require a formal termination order where prolonged and unexplained absence is admitted. The court held that eligibility for pension crystallises on the basis of qualifying service rendered till cessation of service, and since the petitioner did not complete the minimum qualifying service of twenty years as needed under the rules prevailing at the time of abandonment, no right to pension accrued in his favour.
The petitioner’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, was also found to be misplaced, as the case deals with uniformity among eligible pensioners and does not dispense with the statutory requirement of minimum qualifying service.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition on these two grounds.
After dismissing the petition, the court has taken strong disapproval of the plea regarding the loss of service records of the petitioner. The court strongly criticised the State authorities for their failure to maintain and produce service records, despite repeated judicial directions. The court observed that “service records constitute the foundational basis for determining the rights and entitlements of an employee and are required to be maintained and preserved with due care in accordance with the statutory rules and administrative instructions” and also held that the respondents, being trustees of public records, cannot take shelter behind a bald assertion of loss of records.
Calling the loss of records a “serious dereliction of duty,” the court directed the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, to conduct an enquiry to fix responsibility and initiate disciplinary action against erring officials. A compliance report has been ordered to be filed within four months, detailing the steps taken and action initiated.
Appearance:
Advocate Suresh Kashyap for Petitioner
Additional Government Counsel Dheeraj Tripathi for Respondents
