Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Stale Pension Claim, Raps State For Losing Service Records
The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though loss or misplacement of service records by the State is a serious administrative failure, the same cannot by itself create a substantive right for an employee to get pension. At the same time, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma expressed strong disapproval of the State's plea in the matter that the service records of the petitioner were lost....
The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though loss or misplacement of service records by the State is a serious administrative failure, the same cannot by itself create a substantive right for an employee to get pension.
At the same time, the bench of Justice Anand Sharma expressed strong disapproval of the State's plea in the matter that the service records of the petitioner were lost. It held that the State is the trustee of public records, and could not be allowed to take shelter behind such a bald assertion.
“Service records constitute the foundational basis for determining the rights and entitlements of an employee and are required to be maintained and preserved with due care in accordance with the statutory rules and administrative instructions…Such conduct not only demonstrates administrative reluctance but also erodes public confidence in governance and accountability. The loss or misplacement of service records is not a mere procedural lapse, but a serious dereliction of duty for which responsibility must be fixed.”
The Court thus directed initiation of suitable legal and disciplinary action against the officials responsible for such loss, and submission of a detailed compliance report, indicating the steps taken against such officials, within 4 months.
The Court was hearing a petition filed by a government employee who was appointed in 1973 and continued service till 1987 after which he was transferred. The petitioner placed no records that could demonstrate that he reported back for duty after such transfer or raised any grievance.
After remaining completely silent for over two decades, after attaining superannuation based on his joining date, he raised claims for pension and all other retiral benefits. This request was not entertained by the State and hence the petition was filed before the Court.
The State argued that the petitioner had abandoned services after 1987, after which the employer-employee relationship ceased to exist. Further, it was submitted that his service records were not traceable due to which his claim was also not verifiable.
On the contrary, it was argued by the petitioner that mere non-attendance could not result in forfeiture of services, in absence of a formal order of termination, resignation or compulsory retirement. Further, it was submitted that loss of records, could not be used to defeat a legitimate claim of an employee, especially when such lapse was solely on part of the State.
After hearing the contentions, the Court held that a vigilant employee would have immediately sought redressal, and not after more than 2 decades.
“The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being discretionary and equitable, relief can be declined on the ground of unreasonable delay alone. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that stale service claims ought not be entertained. Entertaining a claim after twenty-six years would unsettle settled administrative positions and defeat the principle of finality. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.”
Further, the Court opined that even though maintenance of service records was a statutory obligation on the State, and its loss was depreciable, that by itself did not create any substantive rights in favour of the petitioner.
It was further highlighted that the petitioner had failed to establish continuity of his services beyond 1987, and inaction of the State in passing any final termination order did not evade the statutory requirement of minimum qualifying services.
The Court held that granting relief to the petitioner would set an unhealthy precedent by triggering long-burried service disputes, and would undermine the administrative certainty.
“The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be converted into a forum for revival of stale claims founded on prolonged indolence and neglect.”
In this background, the petition was dismissed. At the same time, the Court strongly disapproved of the State's act of misplacing the service records, and directed initiation of action against the responsible officials. It was further directed that a detailed compliance report shall also be submitted on the steps taken against such officials.
Title: Gopal Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 28