Competent Authority Directed to Expeditiously Determine Pensionary Entitlements Following Prolonged Unauthorized Absence and Subsequent Superannuation

The applicant was initially appointed as a Junior Resident on a tenure basis at SKIMS in 1985

He subsequently served as an Assistant Surgeon and was declared quasi-permanent in 1988

After various stints as a Junior and Senior Resident, he was appointed as a B-Grade Surgeon Specialist in 1993

In July 2002, the applicant proceeded on sanctioned Earned Leave but failed to return, leading to a Show Cause Notice for prolonged absence issued in 2006

Although the applicant attempted to rejoin, his application remained undecided until he reached the age of superannuation (60 years)

The respondents contended that the applicant’s service at SKIMS was largely in a tenure/temporary capacity, unlike the precedent of Dr. Sultan Khuroo cited by the applicant

1. Whether the respondents are obligated to process and release the pensionary and allied service benefits of the applicant in accordance with his service record.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the same pensionary treatment as similarly situated persons, specifically cited precedents.

The court relied on the principles of administrative law governing the timely settlement of terminal benefits and the doctrine of parity in service matters.

The court operated under the mandate of Article 226 of the Constitution of India (transferred to the Tribunal) regarding the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel public authorities to perform their statutory duties concerning pension and service conditions

The court also emphasized the requirement for authorities to pass reasoned orders when a matter has been pending for an extended duration (four years)

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been "tossed from pillar to post" while his application to rejoin service and subsequent pension claims remained undecided for years

While the respondents argued that the applicant’s tenure at SKIMS was temporary compared to the permanent service of the cited precedent (Dr. Khuroo), the court found that the core grievance—the non-disposal of the pension case—remained unaddressed

Given that the petition had been pending for over four years, the Tribunal determined that it was unnecessary to keep the case alive and instead directed the respondents to settle the legal entitlement of the applicant based on his total service record

The competent authority was ordered to settle the issue of release of pension and related benefits within a period of eight weeks, strictly in accordance with law and the applicant's proven entitlement. All connected Miscellaneous Applications (M.As) were also disposed of.