The absence of a formal termination does not negate voluntary abandonment of service; pension eligibility requires minimum qualifying service as per the rules at the time of cessation of service.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant him pension and retiral benefits.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) as a substantive employee of the Government of Rajasthan on 20.08.1973. He rendered continuous service from the year 1973 to 1987, till he was transferred vide order dated 14.07.1987. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that he reported back for duty thereafter or marked attendance anywhere, or even raised any grievance before the departmental authorities by making a representation. For more than two decades following 1987, the petitioner remained completely silent and took no steps whatsoever to assert any alleged service right.

3. As per the petitioner, his normal date of superannuation was 30.11.2010 and in the absence of any formal order of termination or disciplinary action, his service must be deemed to have continued till his date of superannuation. After keeping silence for more than two decades and after attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2010, the petitioner submitted representations in the year 2012 seeking grant of pension and other retiral benefits, followed by a legal notice dated 27.06.2013. The said request was not entertained by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner had abandoned service in the year 1987 and did not possess the minimum qualifying service required under the applicable pension rules and his service record was missing. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner instituted the present writ petition in the year 2013.

4. The respondents, in their reply, have specifically pleaded that the petitioner abandoned service in the year 1987 and never reported back thereafter, resulting in cessation of the employer–employee relationship. It has further been contended that the service records of the petitioner are not traceable owing to passage of time and the petitioner’s own prolonged inaction and making verification of his claim was impossible.

5. Despite repeated and strict directions issued by this Court requiring the respondents to explain the loss of records and to produce whatever documents were available as also to explain the loss of service records, the respondents failed to place original records on record and confined themselves to filing affidavits explaining non-availability as well as lodging FIR in this regard. While this Court does not approve such administrative lapse and deprecate the irresponsible attitude of the officials of the respondents, the core question remains whether such lapse can create or resurrect a substantive legal right in favour of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed the impugned inaction in not granting pensionary benefits as arbitrary, illegal and violative of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 as well as Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that the petitioner was a substantive employee and at no point of time, his services were ever terminated in accordance with law. According to learned counsel, mere non-attendance, in the absence of a formal order of termination, resignation or compulsory retirement, cannot result in forfeiture of service or extinguishment of lien on a substantive post.

7. It was vehemently argued that under the Rajasthan Service Rules, abandonment of service is not an automatic consequence of absence and neces