Access to information under Right to Information Act cannot revive stale claims or create fresh causes of action.

The Appellants are former employees (or legal heirs) of the Export Inspection Council (EIC) and Export Inspection Agencies (EIAs), statutory bodies under the Ministry of Commerce.

Between 1991 and 1994, the Appellants exited service through various modes: retrenchment, superannuation, or the Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme (SVRS).

They challenged a Single Judge’s dismissal of their writ petition, which sought pensionary benefits under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

The Appellants contended that despite a 1994 Cabinet decision intended to protect surplus staff and provide pensionary benefits, they were denied these rights and were instead treated under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme or retrenched under Temporary Service Rules.

1. Whether the Appellants possess an enforceable right to be governed by the CCS (Pension) Rules based on the 1994 Cabinet policy that was never formally implemented.

2. Whether the Appellants, having exercised options to remain under the CPF scheme or having accepted SVRS settlements, can claim parity with pensionable employees decades later.

3. Whether the denial of pension constitutes a "continuing wrong" sufficient to overcome a delay of over thirty years.

The Court applied Section 17(3) of the Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (as amended in 1984), which continues EIC Pension Rules only for those who did not exercise a contrary option.

It relied on the principle that a Cabinet decision not brought into effect does not confer enforceable rights, distinguishing State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Nezone Law House which pertains to rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

The Court further applied the doctrine of "negative equality," asserting that Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or claim parity where circumstances differ.

The Court held that the Right to Information Act, 2005, cannot revive stale claims or create fresh causes of action.

The Court found that the Appellants lacked a uniform legal standing because their service exits (retrenchment vs. SVRS) carried distinct legal consequences.

While Appellants claimed the 1994 Cabinet decision granted them pension rights, the Court noted this proposal was never formulated or submitted, thus remaining legally unenforceable.

Regarding the CPF scheme, evidence showed Appellants had signed individual option forms to remain in CPF; the presumption in Section 17(3) of the Export Act only covers those who exercised no option, which was not the case here.

The Court rejected the "continuing wrong" argument, noting that the grievance crystallized at the time of exit (1991–1994); taking a one-time SVRS settlement served as a full discharge of claims, and the Appellants could not "recast" that exit decades later.

The Court concluded that the challenges to orders from the 1990s were barred by extraordinary delay and laches and that obtaining documents via RTI does not reset the limitation period for stale claims.

The Impugned Judgment of the Single Judge was upheld, and no costs were awarded.