Employee cannot claim pension for periods of unauthorized absence or service with a different employer.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Punjabi) at A.N. Jha Government Inter College, Rudrapur, in 1986

From November 18, 1988, to November 27, 1995, he served as a Professor (Hindi) in Rajasthan without resigning from his local post or obtaining a No Objection Certificate

He was absent from his original post for approximately eight years (1988–1996)

Although his services were terminated in 1996, the Public Services Tribunal (affirmed by the High Court in 2016) ordered the payment of his regular salary from March 8, 1996, until his superannuation on March 31, 2006

The petitioner subsequently filed a claim for retiral benefits, which the Tribunal allowed in 2018. Following execution proceedings, the Treasury Office paid his pension, gratuity, and other benefits in 2019

The petitioner then filed the present writ petition seeking 12% interest on delayed payments and pension for his "complete service" including the period he served in Rajasthan

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits for the entire length of service (1986–2006), including the period he served at a different institution in Rajasthan without departmental permission

2. Whether the petitioner can maintain a claim for interest and further retiral benefits after having previously informed the Public Services Tribunal that his grievances regarding pension and gratuity were resolved

The court applied the principle of estoppel by conduct and the fundamental service law doctrine of "qualifying service," which dictates that pensionary benefits are commensurate only with the period of actual service rendered in the specific department or as sanctioned by law

The court also relied on the principle of finality of settlement, where a statement made before a judicial forum (Public Services Tribunal) that a dispute is "resolved" precludes the party from re-litigating the same issue

The Court noted that the petitioner was absent from his sanctioned post for over seven years while working in Rajasthan without the requisite permission or an NOC

It found that the petitioner had already received salary for the period between 1996 and 2004 pursuant to previous litigation

Critically, the Court observed that the petitioner had submitted an application (Annexure CA-3) before the Public Services Tribunal stating that his pension and gratuity issues were resolved and seeking closure of his case

The Court held that since the averments in the State's counter-affidavit regarding this settlement remained unrebutted, they must be accepted as correct

Furthermore, the Court reasoned that the petitioner could not legally claim pension for the 1986–2006 period when a substantial portion of that time was spent serving a different employer

Having previously declared before the Tribunal that his claims were satisfied, the petitioner was barred from "turning around" to stake a claim for interest or additional service weightage

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the relief claimed could not be granted. No order as to costs was made