Back
2008(7) Supreme 331
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
C. Jacob — Petitioner(s)
versus
Director of Geology & Mining & Anr. — Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 25795 of 2008
CC 11425/2008
Decided on : 03-10-2008
(b) Service Law – Representation – Rejection of stale or time barred representation or reply to representation unrelated to the department etc. cannot give rise to fresh cause of action to revive a stale or dead claim. (Para 7)
(c) Service Law – Service benefits – When a government servant abandons service to take up alternative employment or to attend to personal affairs, and does not bother to send any letter seeking leave or letter of resignation or letter of voluntary retirement, thereby not treated as being in service, he cannot after two decades, represent that he should be taken back to duty – Such employee cannot be treated as having continued in service, thereby deeming the entire period as qualifying service for purpose of pension. (Para 9)
(d) Service Law – Stale claims – If the representation is on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, Courts should desist from directing ‘consideration’ of such claims. (Para 10)
(e) Service Law – Writ Court declaring a termination in 1982 as illegal in a writ petition filed in 2005 – When the original department was wound up long back, the succeeding department cannot be held answerable for the procedure adopted for the termination 20 years back – When a person approaches a court after two decades after termination, the burden would be on him to prove what he alleges – Tribunal’s direction to ‘consider’ a representation relating to a stale issue resulting in the Writ Court dealing with the matter as if it was a live claim. (Para 11)
(f) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rule 43(2) and Rule 49(2)(b), CCS Pension Rules – Deals with ‘Regulation of amount of pension’ and not entitlement to pension. (Para 15)
(g) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Chapter V – Retiring pension – A minimum of 20 years qualifying service is required for retiring pension and not on completion of 10 years service – Petitioner not entitled to retiring pension. (Para 16)
(h) Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 – Rule 43(2) (Rule 49(2)(2) of CCSP Rules) – Refers to payment of pension to a person who has a qualifying service of not less than 10 years – It does not mean that the minimum period of service prescribed for retirement pension is reduced to 10 years – It also does not mean that government servants who are dismissed/removed/compulsorily retired by way of punishment, or those who voluntarily retire before reaching the age of superannuation with less than 20 years of qualifying service, become entitled to pension. (Para 17)
Facts of the case :
1. The petitioner joined service as a Drill Helper in June, 1967, in the Regional Mining Cell, Trichy, in the erstwhile State Geology branch of Department of Industries and Commerce, State of Tamil Nadu. According to him, his services were terminated in the year 1982, in pursuance of show cause notice dated 8.7.1982.
2. Nearly eighteen years later, the petitioner gave representations to the first respondent requesting that he may be taken back into service. As the enclosure to the said representation was incomplete, the first respondent called upon him to send the complete document. Instead of complying with the said request, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.
3. Pursuant to direction of the Tribunal. the first respondent considered and rejected the petitioner’s representations.
4. On 10.3.2003, the petitioner filed an original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which was transferred to the Madras High Court.
5. The writ Court declared the termination of petitioner’s service in 1982 was illegal. It declared that the petitioner was deemed to have retired from service from 18.7.1982 and directed sanction and payment of pension from that date.
6. The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal. The Division Bench held that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as on 18.7.1982, and therefore, he was not entitled to pension.
Finding of the Court :
Petitioner is not entitled to pension.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
R.V. Raveendran, J. —
IA 1 is allowed and the delay of 56 days condoned. We find no merit in this Special Leave Petition. However, as the questions raised in this petition arise repeatedly, we propose to pass a reasoned order after referring to the relevant facts.
2. The petitioner joined service as a Drill Helper in June, 1967, in the Regional Mining Cell, Trichy, in the erstwhile State Geology branch of Department of Industries and Commerce, State of Tamil Nadu. According to him, his services were terminated in the year 1982, in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 8.7.1982. Nearly eighteen years later, the petitioner gave representations dated 5.5.2000 and 21.7.2000 to the first respondent requesting that he may be taken back into service. As the enclosure (show cause notice dated 8.7.1982) to the said representation was incomplete, the first respondent called upon him to send the complete document. Instead of complying with the said request, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the first respondent to dispose of his representation. The Administrative Tribunal disposed of the said application on 19.12.2002, without notice to the respondents, with a direction to the Director of Geology & Mining (first respondent), to consider petitioner’s representation dated 21.7.2000 and pass an order thereon within four months. In compliance with the said direction, the first respondent considered and rejected the petitioner’s representations by order dated 9.4.2002. The relevant portions of the said order referring to the facts, is extracted below :
“The individual was sanctioned unearned leave on medical certificate for 25 days from 7.10.1980 to 31.10.1980 and he did not rejoin duty after the expiry of this leave. On perusal of the first page of the Memo No.19093/E2/80, dated 8.7.1982, the individual has taken up private employment and has applied for leave on loss of pay for two years from 1.1.1981 onwards vide his letter dated 1.1.1981. In the memo dated 19.2.1981 of the State Geologist, he was informed that his private employment is against the Government Servants’ conduct rules and hence, disciplinary action would be taken against him if his explanation on the above was not received within 15 days from the date of receipt of the memo. The above memo was sent by Registered post to the address at Marthandam in Kanyakumari District through the Assistant Geologist, Regional Mines Cell, Tiruchi. The memo was returned to the Assistant Geologist, RMC, Tiruchi, undelivered.
Then another memo dated 6.8.1981 was issued to him calling for his explanation in 15 days time as to why discriplinary action should not be taken against him and his services terminated if explanations were not received in time. The above memo was sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement due to the address “Singaliar Street, Marthandam Post, Kanyakumari District”. The receipt of the above memo was acknowledgment by his wife Smt. C. Stella Jacob, on 31.8.1981.
On 10.9.1981, Thiru M. Ramaswamy, Assistant Geologist, RMC, Tirunelveli contacted his wife with his Geological Assistant and had the information that he was working in India and refused to inform the exact concern where he was employed. The above information was reported by the Assistant Geologist, RMC, Tirunelveli in his letter dated 14.9.1981.
In spite of so many efforts taken by the office, he has not even responded to the memo, which was received by his wife. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to him vide memo dated 8.7.1982 by the State Geologist, Guindy by Registered Post (Acknowledgment Due) and the above memo was received by him. He absented himself from duty and kept silence for a long period (01.11.1980 to 4.5.2000). He has submitted representations (dated 5.5.2000 and 19.7.2000) and requested to permit him to rejoin duty. In his letter dated 5.5.2000, he has stated that due to illness he has not attended duty and subsequently, he was also term
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
