IMPORTANT POINT
The lack of evidence of termination or departmental inquiry can influence the acceptance of a claim for the entire service period to be considered for pensionary benefits.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 30.09.2016 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O. A. No. 1548/2014.

2. Vide the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the original application preferred by the respondent by directing the petitioner to treat the period between 23.07.1975 to 18.10.1993 as also the period between 13.11.1997 to 31.03.2013 as qualifying service for the purposes of calculating pension and other retiral benefits of the respondent. Simultaneously, the learned Tribunal has directed that the period between 19.10.1993 and 12.11.1997 would be treated as `Not on Duty'.

3. It is the common case of the parties that on 23.07.1975, the respondent was appointed in the Delhi Division of the Railways as a Group D employee and was thereafter posted as a Booking Clerk, at Bhiwani City Railway Station w.e.f. 22.07.1980. It is the petitioner's case that on 18.10.1993, the respondent was found guilty of using government revenue/station collections for personal use and was thereafter tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City, who after finding his guilty of the charge levelled against him, released him on probation subject to his furnishing a bail bond for a period of two years and paying a sum of Rs. 700/- to the public exchequer towards prosecution charges.

4. It is the petitioner's further case that after the respondent was released on probation vide the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambala City, on 18.10.1993, he was upon his repeated representations re-engaged as a fresh entrant on 13.11.1997 from which post he superannuated on 31.03.2013. Consequently, retiral benefits of the respondent were released in his favour by taking into account his service only for the period between 13.11.1997 to 31.03.2013. It is in these circumstances that the respondent approached the learned Tribunal seeking a direction to the petitioners to take into account his entire service between 23.07.1975 to 31.03.2013.

5. The learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.A. preferred by the respondent by directing the petitioner to also take into account the respondent service between 23.07.1975 to 18.10.1993. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present petition.

6. In support of the petition, Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the respondent was engaged as a fresh entrant on 13.11.1997 and that too only on humanitarian grounds and, therefore, his past service could not be taken into account for the purpose of computing his retiral benefits. She submits that in fact she has instructions to state that even a departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent, but no documents are available on record in respect of this departmental inquiry, which was initiated against the respondent. She further submits that the learned Tribunal has also failed to appreciate that taking into account that the petitioner's grievance was in respect of his service prior to 1993, the O.A. filed in 2014 was clearly barred by limitation and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. She, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

7. On the other hand, Mr. U. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order and submits that when the petitioner was despite repeated opportunities unable to produce any termination order, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing that the entire period except for the period between 19.10.1993 to 12.11.1997 for which there was no record be treated as qualifying period for computation of his retiral benefits. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.

8. Having considered the rival submissions of the parties, we may begin by noting the