Deemed resignation for prolonged absence requires a reasonable opportunity to explain before pension benefits are denied.

Abdul Wahab, a Lower Division Clerk in the Lakshadweep Administration, served from 8 September 1994. After taking earned leave from 25 June 2004, he was absent for extended periods, briefly returned to duty from 9 to 31 May 2005, and did not thereafter rejoin.

Disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence ended in 2011 with a minor penalty of withholding increments for two years. He was nevertheless included in a 2016 list of employees due to retire that year. His pension papers and request to regularise his absence were not processed; the Administration maintained that he lacked the ten years of qualifying service required for pension.

Wahab died while the application was pending, and his widow and daughter were impleaded as applicants.

Whether the applicant’s extended absence could result in his being treated as having resigned from Government service without first being given a reasonable opportunity to explain it.

Whether the applicants were entitled to a direction for immediate grant of pension and other retirement benefits, or instead to consideration of relaxation and regularisation of the absence.

Rule 12(1) and (2) of the CCS (Leave) Rules, as amended by the notification dated 29 March 2012, provide that a Government servant may not be granted continuous leave exceeding five years and, subject to the rule’s terms, absence for more than five continuous years may be deemed resignation; its proviso requires a reasonable opportunity to explain the absence before that consequence is invoked.

The Tribunal also considered Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules as a possible basis for relaxation, without deciding that relaxation was required or that the applicant qualified for pension.

The respondents relied on Suresh B. v. Chief Engineer and Administrator, Andaman Lakshadweep Harbour Works [2024 (1) KHC 150], which the Tribunal distinguished on the facts, including the different disciplinary outcome.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not worked after 31 May 2005 and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his prolonged absence.

However, the disciplinary proceedings initiated during that absence had concluded with a minor penalty, rather than termination, and the Administration’s 2016 retirement list indicated that he remained on its rolls.

The Tribunal held that the deeming consequence under Rule 12 could not be applied without the reasonable opportunity required by its proviso; it therefore did not accept the respondents’ reliance on Suresh B. as determinative.

The applicant had rendered nearly ten years of service, but had not applied for relaxation under Rule 88. The Tribunal accordingly left the merits of pension entitlement and any permissible regularisation for consideration by the Administration.

It permitted the additional applicants to submit a detailed representation seeking relaxation under Rule 88 of the CCS (Pension) Rules and, if legally permissible, regularisation of the absence.

It directed that even if absence after 1 June 2005 was not regularised, the period of service up to that date be reckoned and the request for relaxation considered.

The respondents were directed to decide the representation concerning pension and other retirement benefits within 180 days of receiving a copy of the order. The O.A. was disposed of without costs.