Retiral benefits cannot be denied solely on missing records without establishing lawful termination of service.

Basant Lal was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Fireman in the Northern Railway in 1982 after his father died in harness.

He was nominated for ATS/ALD training at Ludhiana by office letter dated 19 December 1990.

He alleged that, after leaving the training on account of threats and subsequent illness, he was declared fit but was not permitted to resume duty.

He claimed to have approached the Railway authorities and remained without salary or service benefits until reaching the age of superannuation on 30 June 2019.

He sought pension, GPF, Group Insurance, leave encashment and other retiral benefits under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Basant Lal died and his widow, Smt. Hemlata, was substituted as applicant.

The respondents contended that he had remained absent from 1990, had produced no proof of attending training or seeking resumption of duty, and had approached the Tribunal after approximately 31 years.

They further stated that the prolonged absence could have attracted disciplinary action under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, but that the old disciplinary record was unavailable.

The applicant relied, inter alia, on the training nomination letter and a representation dated 12 February 1993.

1. Whether the applicant’s service status could be treated as terminated or discontinued merely because he was absent from duty and the old disciplinary record was unavailable, in the absence of an order of dismissal, removal or termination?

2. Whether the substituted applicant was entitled to consideration of claims for pension, GPF, Group Insurance, leave encashment and other retiral benefits?

3. Whether salary and other service benefits could automatically be granted for the period during which the original applicant did not perform duty from 1990 until superannuation in 2019?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, concerning applications by aggrieved government servants regarding service matters.

It applied the principle that an employee’s dismissal, removal or termination must be established through a lawful order or relevant disciplinary record; mere absence of records cannot, by itself, prove lawful termination.

The Tribunal also applied the principle that service records are required to be maintained by the employer, and the employee should not ordinarily be required to produce records that are in the administration’s custody.

Prolonged unauthorised absence may attract disciplinary action under the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968, but entitlement to salary and consequential benefits must be determined under the applicable service rules and on the basis of the established service record.

The Tribunal accepted that Basant Lal’s appointment and nomination for training were undisputed and that the respondents had not produced any material showing cancellation of the nomination or proving that he had been dismissed, removed or terminated.

The respondents’ inference that he must have been removed merely because he remained absent was therefore insufficient.

The representation dated 12 February 1993 also undermined the respondents’ contention that he had never approached the Railway administration after 1990.

However, the Tribunal declined to presume that the applicant was entitled to salary for the entire period of absence, observing that salary and related service benefits depended on determination of his service status and the applicable rules.

Since the relevant service records were either unavailable or had not been produced, the respondents were directed to verify the complete record and, if necessary, reconstruct the service particulars from available official material.

The respondents must pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months of receiving a certified copy of the judgment and communicate it to the substituted applicant.

The Tribunal expressly held that consequential benefits, including salary, for the period during which the original applicant did not perform duty would not automatically be payable.

There was no order as to costs, and all connected miscellaneous applications were disposed of.