Regularization of absence for pensionary benefits creates estoppel against subsequent denial of corresponding leave dues.

The applicant is the widow of a deceased employee who served as a Girdawar in the Revenue Department and retired on December 31, 2017

The deceased employee was absent from duty due to medical issues from October 10, 2014, to December 28, 2017 (1176 days)

This period was subsequently regularized by the competent authority through the grant of Half Pay Leave, Extraordinary Leave, and Special Disability Leave

Based on this regularization, pensionary benefits were sanctioned and family pension is currently being paid

However, the respondents failed to release the leave salary for the regularized period and the cash equivalent of 300 days of earned leave, leading the applicant to file the present Original Application

The respondents contested the claim on grounds of limitation and argued that the Special Disability Leave was improperly granted

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the eight-year delay since the employee's retirement

2. Whether the respondents are legally permitted to deny leave salary and leave encashment after having regularized the period of absence for the purpose of sanctioning pensionary benefits

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, regarding the tribunal's jurisdiction to hear service matters

It further applied Section 21 of the same Act regarding the limitation period, balanced against the doctrine of "continuing wrong" in matters of retiral dues

The Tribunal relied on the Principle of Estoppel and the tenets of fairness and legal certainty, which prevent an authority from reopening a finalized service record to the detriment of an employee

The Tribunal reasoned that since the competent authority had already exercised its discretion to regularize the 1176-day absence and acted upon that regularization to calculate and sanction pension, the matter had attained finality

The respondents’ attempt to challenge the validity of the Special Disability Leave post-retirement was characterized as an "afterthought" that contradicts the contemporaneous service record

Regarding limitation, the Tribunal determined that retiral dues constitute a "continuing obligation" rather than a one-time cause of action; thus, non-payment represents a recurring cause of action

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the department’s internal correspondence acknowledged the entitlement, which sufficiently explained the delay and precluded the respondents from raising technical objections to defeat a substantive right

The Tribunal ruled that once service is regularized for pension, the respondents are estopped from denying associated leave benefits

The respondents were directed to process and release the leave salary for the period from October 10, 2014, to December 27, 2017, and pay the cash in lieu of 300 days of earned leave within eight weeks of receiving the order

No order as to costs was made