Facts
The applicant joined as an Assistant Engineer on March 10, 1977, and served until April 19, 1994, when a penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2.1The applicant claims 17 years of service, while the respondents acknowledged at least 15 years in a 2017 communication; both periods exceed the 10-year minimum qualifying service required for pension
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2.1Despite the applicant’s entitlement, the respondents failed to settle retirement benefits, citing an inability to trace or reconstruct the applicant’s service records
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3.1The applicant filed this Original Application (OA) seeking directions for the grant of pension, gratuity, dearness allowance, leave encashment, and the issuance of a Pension Payment Order (PPO)
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1Issues
1. Whether the applicant is entitled to pensionary benefits under Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, following his compulsory retirement
Source reference: p. 2, para. 12. Whether the respondents, as custodians of service records, are obligated to reconstruct missing records to determine the applicant's qualifying service and entitlement
Source reference: p. 4, para. 2.2; p. 5, para. 4.1Law Applied
The court considered Rule 40 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, which governs the grant of pension and gratuity upon compulsory retirement at a rate between two-thirds and full compensation
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1It also referenced Rule 57(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, regarding the submission of written statements and affidavits by employees when service records are unavailable
Source reference: p. 4, para. 2.2The matter was adjudicated under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985
Source reference: p. 2, para. 1Reasoning
The Tribunal observed that the respondents admitted the applicant had rendered at least 15 years of service, which satisfies the statutory requirement for pensionary benefits
Source reference: p. 3, para. 2.1While the respondents argued that the service records were currently untraceable, the Tribunal emphasized that the respondents are the legal custodians of such records
Source reference: p. 4, para. 2.2, 3.1The Tribunal reasoned that the matter could be resolved through a collaborative effort: the applicant would provide available documentation or affidavits to assist the respondents in reconstructing the service history
Source reference: p. 4, para. 3.2; p. 5, para. 4.1By applying the principle that administrative delays or missing records should not indefinitely deprive an employee of earned benefits, the court determined that a time-bound direction for record reconstruction and a reasoned order was necessary
Source reference: p. 5, para. 4.2Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA by directing a structured process for settlement: (i) Respondents must provide a list of required documents/assistance to the applicant within 10 days; (ii) The applicant must furnish available records within the following two weeks; and (iii) The Competent Authority must thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order regarding the grant of pensionary benefits within two weeks
No order was made as to costs
Source reference: p. 6, para. 5Original Court PDF
R K JINDALvsINFORMATION AND BROADCASTING
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in