Pension claims are recurring rights; dismissal on limitation grounds is improper when a continuing wrong is involved, permitting evaluation on merits.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)--Petitioner impugns order dated 23.01.2017 whereby the original application of the petitioner impugning order dated 16.12.2016 (also impugned herein) was dismissed. Petitioner is also aggrieved by order dated 16.12.2016 whereby the original application filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that he is inter-alia entitled to retirement pension has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. The Tribunal in the impugned order has held that petitioner took voluntary retirement from service on 22.01.1994 and the petitioner thereafter filed an application in 2015 seeking grant of pension which was rejected on the ground of delay.

3. Petitioner joined Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) on 10.06.1973. As per the petitioner on completion of 20 years of service petitioner applied for voluntary retirement as per the rules which was approved by the competent authority and petitioner was relieved on 22.01.1994. Petitioner thereafter joined the services of United Nations Development Project in 1994 where he continued till 29.09.2005.

4. Thereafter he returned to India and was selected as Director of Central Institute of Fisheries Education in the year 2005 and then submitted a request for payment of voluntary retirement benefits which was denied on the ground that petitioner did not have qualifying service of 20 years when he had taken voluntary retirement from ICAR.

5. Learned counsel submits that there was some period on which petitioner was on leave on account of illness and death in his family. He submits that as per the rules the request for voluntary retirement could have been processed only after completion of 20 years of service and at the time when voluntary retirement was sanctioned no such objection was taken so petitioner was under a belief that he had the qualifying service of 20 years.

6. This is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent who submits that in 1981 itself petitioner was informed that the period of leave shall be treated as extraordinary leave and shall not be counted for the purpose of continuity of service or pension.

7. The controversy in the present case is two fold. One is as to whether the petitioner had completed 20 years of qualifying service prior to seeking voluntary retirement and the effect of the competent authority acceding to the request for voluntary retirement for the purposes of grant of pension and the other issue that arises is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the petition solely on the ground of limitation.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pension being a recurring right limitation would not apply as a cause of action to seek the relief of pension would accrue from month to month and at best the claim of pension could be restricted to some period prior to filing of the petition.

9. By the impugned order the Tribunal has merely considered the period of delay as not having been sufficiently explained by the petitioner and dismissed the petition solely on the ground of limitation.

10. Reference may had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008(8) SCC 648 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:

"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based