State’s duty to maintain service records is superseded by the doctrine of laches in stale claims.

The applicant, a retired Pharmacist who served from 1981 to 2022, approached the Tribunal seeking the release of withheld annual increments for the period 1994–1998.

The respondents were unable to grant these increments because Volume-I of the applicant’s Service Book (covering 1981–1999) was missing, and the reconstructed Volume-II only covered service from March 1999 onwards.

The applicant claimed the respondents, as statutory custodians of service records under SR 198 & 199, were responsible for the loss.

The respondents contended that the applicant had a history of suspension (1989) and a penalty of stoppage of one increment, but due to the loss of old records and the applicant's failure to provide documents, the exact status of service during 1994–1998 could not be verified.

The applicant first formally represented for these 28-year-old increments only after retirement in 2022.

1. Whether the Original Application is barred by limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, given the 28-year delay in raising the claim.

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the grant of withheld increments from 1994–1998 and subsequent revision of pension in the absence of primary service records.

The court applied the statutory bar of limitation under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It relied on the doctrine of "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniunt" (law assists the vigilant, not the indolent) as elucidated in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. T.T. Murali Babu (2014), which holds that stale claims cannot be revived by belated representations.

The court further integrated precedents from D.C.S. Negi v. Union of India, Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar, and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh regarding the dismissal of dead claims and the limits of "continuing cause of action" in matters of delay and laches.

Reference was also made to S.R. 198 and 199 regarding the maintenance and custody of Service Books.

The Tribunal found that while the Government is the custodian of service records under SR 198 & 199, the applicant’s extreme delay in seeking relief was fatal to the case.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's plea of a "continuous cause of action" for pension, noting that the underlying dispute was a "stale and dead" claim regarding increments from the 1990s.

Applying the ratio from T.T. Murali Babu, the court observed that the applicant chose to remain "oblivious" and "indolent" (comparing the inaction to "Kumbhakarna") throughout his remaining service years and only raised the issue post-retirement.

The court noted that the applicant's service history was complicated by past penalties and periods treated as Extra-Ordinary Leave (EOL), making it impossible to grant relief without the missing documentation which the applicant also failed to provide.

The O.A. was dismissed, and no relief was granted regarding the increments, pay revision, or interest.