IMPORTANT POINT
A pragmatic approach is essential in condoning delays in pension claims, prioritizing substantial justice over strict adherence to procedural timelines.

JUDGMENT :

(Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.) :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective sides.

2. The Petitioner is before us being aggrieved by the order dated 28/02/2024, passed by the learned Division Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar (for short 'the Tribunal'), rejecting Misc. Application No.14/2021 in Original Application (St.) No.1471/2020, by which, the Tribunal has declined to condone the delay of nine years.

3. The sequence of events in this matter are relevant for deciding the issue of condonation of delay, keeping in mind, as to whether the Petitioner has an arguable pension case on it’s merits. More importantly, if the delay is not condoned, whether the Petitioner, who was a lady medical Officer, would be deprived of pension for her lifetime.

4. The dates and sequence of events are as under :-

(a) The Petitioner joined as a 'Medical Officer' on a bond contract, on 07/07/1988.

(b) The Petitioner’s services were regularized as a 'Medical Officer' w.e.f. 01/02/1998, vide the order dated 31/08/1999.

(c) The technical breaks in the bond contractual services of the Petitioner, along with similarly situated candidates, were condoned by the concerned Authorities by an order dated 26/07/2004 and her services were regularized w.e.f. 07/07/1988.

(d) The Petitioner could not report for duties from 13/08/2010 on account of family exigencies.

(e) The Petitioner made an application for seeking voluntary retirement after having completed 20 years of qualifying service for pension, on 12/08/2012. She had completed qualifying service of 20 years on 06/07/2008.

(f) She entered the prescribed Form for seeking voluntary retirement, on 04/09/2012.

(g) There was no communication from the Employer in any manner, whatsoever, which is an admitted position.

(h) She again tendered a reminder on 23/01/2013, reminding the Employer of her voluntary employment application.

(i) On 03/02/2014, she tendered one more reminder to the Competent Authority.

(j) On 19/12/2014, she again reminded the Employer of the format application dated 04/09/2012.

(k) On 23/03/2015, she once again tendered a reminder referring to all earlier five communications.

(l) On 25/09/2019, she again tendered a detailed application running into five pages, by referring to the chronological dates and events.

(m) Since pension was not being paid to her, she moved Original Application (St.) No.1471/2020 before the learned Tribunal at Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar along with an application for condonation of delay bearing Misc. Application No.14/2021. This was preceded by Writ Petition No.3241/2020, filed before the Division Bench of this Court, which ordered on 26/02/2020, that the Petitioner can avail of a remedy before the learned Tribunal.

(n) By the impugned order dated 28/02/2024, the learned Division Bench of the Tribunal rejected Misc. Application No.14/2021 and declined to condone the delay.

5. The learned A.G.P. has vehemently opposed this Writ Petition. He places reliance upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Employers/State before the learned Tribunal, as well as the affidavit-in-reply filed before this Court by Dr. Rahul Maruti Chavan, In-charge Chief Administrative Officer, Office of the Deputy Director, Health Service, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar. He submits that the Petitioner’s case is hopeless and deserves to be rejected with exemplary costs. The Petitioner had voluntarily remained absent after August 2010. Though it is conceded that the Application for voluntary retirement was not responded to by the Department, he submits on the basis of the affidavits filed before the Tribunal and before this Court, that, no response was necessary since the Petitioner was remaining absent.

6. It is trite law that, while deciding the application for condonation of delay, the Court has to take a pragmatic view and refrain from adopting a pedantic approach. So also, the Court has to assess, as to w