Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Anand Sharma dismissed a writ petition by a former State employee seeking pension and retiral benefits on the claim that, in the absence of any termination order, his service should be treated as continuing up to superannuation. The Court found that the employee had stopped attending duties decades earlier and was not entitled to pension on the basis of qualifying service proved on record, holding that the State’s loss or misplacement of service records, though a serious administrative failure, cannot by itself create a substantive right to pension. At the same time, the Bench rejected the State’s bare plea that records were “lost”, noting its duty as trustee of public records, and directed the Principal Secretary of the Public Works Department to conduct an enquiry, fix responsibility, take action against erring officials, and file a compliance report within four months.

Also Read: Authorities Conducting Public Auctions Must Disclose Existing Encumbrances And Pending Litigation Related To Property: Supreme Court

The petitioner rendered service until 1987, when he was transferred. Thereafter, no material was produced to show that he reported back for duty, marked attendance, or pursued any departmental remedy. According to the petitioner, in the absence of any formal termination or disciplinary action, his service ought to be treated as continuing until his superannuation in 2010. Representations seeking pension were made only in 2012, followed by a legal notice, which were rejected by the authorities on the ground of abandonment of service and lack of qualifying service.

The State contended that the petitioner had voluntarily abandoned service in 1987 and that the employer–employee relationship had ceased. It was further stated that service records were not traceable due to lapse of time and the petitioner’s prolonged inaction. The dispute primarily concerned entitlement to pension, applicability of pension rules, effect of abandonment of service, and delay in invoking writ jurisdiction.

The Court recorded that the petitioner had “admittedly ceased to attend duties in 1987 and remained completely silent for more than two decades” and noted that no document was placed on record to demonstrate reporting back for duty or asserting service rights during that period. It observed that the contention that service continued till superannuation was “misconceived”, as the cause of action arose when the petitioner stopped discharging duties.

On delay, the Court observed that “a vigilant employee would have immediately sought redressal through departmental or judicial remedies” and that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 could be declined solely on the ground of unreasonable delay. It recorded that “stale service claims ought not be entertained” and that entertaining a claim after twenty-six years would unsettle settled administrative positions.

On merits, the Court stated that “long unauthorised absence can also be treated as voluntary abandonment of service” and rejected the contention that absence of a formal termination order created a presumption of continuity. It further observed that “pension is a deferred benefit earned for service actually rendered” and eligibility crystallises on the basis of qualifying service till cessation of service.

Regarding missing records, while deprecating the lapse, the Court recorded that “loss of records does not ipso facto confer substantive rights” and entitlement must flow from statutory compliance and proved qualifying service. It held that subsequent pension rules reducing qualifying service could not be applied retrospectively to revive a concluded service relationship.

Also Read: Third Party Lacks Locus Standi To Challenge Withdrawal Of Complaint; Rajasthan High Court

The Court ordered that “for the reasons aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Principal Secretary of Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan” shall “conduct an appropriate enquiry for ascertaining the responsibility for loss of petitioner’s service records.”

The said authority shall “initiate suitable legal and disciplinary action against the erring officials in accordance with law. A detailed compliance report indicating the steps taken, the officials found responsible and the action initiated their against shall be placed on record before this Court within a period of four months from today. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Additional Government Counsel

Case Title: Gopal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: RJ-JP:1411
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11940/2013
Bench: Justice Anand Sharma