The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of credible evidence in employment disputes and the dismissal of claims based on the absence of supporting records and the lack of credible evidence.

Veena Birbal, J.

1. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.12.2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ("the Tribunal") in OA No. 488/2007 by which prayer of the petitioner seeking direction to respondents to produce his service record and to grant him pension/service benefit has been rejected.

2. Petitioner has alleged that he was engaged as fitter/Khalasi by respondents in Group D, Class C on 14.4.1953. As per him, he was engaged in running department at Loco Shed, Moradabad in 1969-70 where he worked uptil 1971. Petitioner has further alleged that he fell ill in 1971 and had taken treatment in Railway Hospital from where he was referred to AIIMS.

There he remained admitted for 20 days and was further advised to take rest for 90 days. Petitioner has alleged that after his recovery he reported for duty but was not allowed to join. Thereafter from time to time he approached respondents for joining the duty but was not allowed. Ultimately he was told that he had completed the age of superannuation on 10.7.94. He has made several representations to the respondents but of no result. However he received an order dated 11.7.2002 and in response to same petitioner submitted required information on 29.7.2002. Petitioner has allegedly made representations dated 12.8.2002, 28.8.2002, 1.10.2002. On 9.10.2002 Divisional Manager, Railway, Moradabad wrote a letter to EP Branch, Work Branch, Moradabad with a copy to petitioner wherein complete details including the record of service of the petitioner was asked for taking further action in the matter. On 22.11.2002 petitioner sent a legal notice to respondents under Section 80 CPC through the counsel claiming all service benefits including pension. Thereafter respondents vide letter dated 12.7.2003 informed the petitioner that since his service details were not available, no further action in the matter was possible.

Aggrieved with inaction on the part of the respondents petitioner filed OA NO. 3722/2003 before the Tribunal which was disposed of vide order dated 2.1.2004 with a direction to respondents to take final decision with regard to petitioners retiral benefits within two months of the date of the receipt of the order.

Petitioner has alleged that he submitted necessary proof before the concerned authorities in support of his claim. Respondents rejected his claim vide order dated 28.5.2004. Again feeling aggrieved by the said order he filed another OA 1995/04 before the Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The said petition was disposed of by the tribunal vide order dated 4.9.2005 with the direction to respondents to reexamine petitioners claim by verifying particulars from staff register. The claim of the petitioner was again rejected by the respondents vide order dated 4.12.2005 on the ground that no proof of his having worked with the respondents had been found in the staff register.

Petitioner again challenged the said order dated 4.12.2005 by filing OA No. 539/2006 before the Tribunal. Tribunal vide its order dated 4.8.06 quashed the order of the respondents and remanded back the matter for verifying the working period for determining the claim for pensionary benefits. Even on re-examination his claim was rejected vide order dated 22.12.2006. Aggrieved with the same he again filed OA No. 488/07 before the Tribunal which was also dismissed vide the impugned order dated 6.12.2007. Hence the present petition.

.3. Learned Counsel for petitioner contended that he had filed O.A. No. 488/2007 so that necessary documents pertaining to service of petitioner from 14.4.1953 to 1970 pertaining to his employment be produced before Tribunal. It is contended that no order was passed by the Tribunal in this regard. It is contended that petitioner had filed necessary documents i.e. his P.F. account number and employee ticket number to substantiate his claim for retiral benefits and pension. Despite that same are not considered by respondents and