Holding

Stale representations cannot be entertained to revive claims and retiring pension is payable only after a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service; therefore the petitioner is not entitled to pension.

Summary

C. Jacob, a former drill helper who joined service in 1967, was terminated in 1982 for unauthorized absence and private employment. After an 18‑year gap he filed representations in 2000 seeking reinstatement, which were rejected, leading him to file a writ petition for pension benefits. The High Court declared his termination illegal and ordered pension from 1982, but the Division Bench reversed, holding he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service. The Supreme Court examined whether a delayed representation can revive a stale claim and interpreted the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules on retirement pension eligibility. It held that courts should not direct consideration of stale representations and that retiring pension requires at least 20 years of qualifying service, not merely 10 years. Consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to pension and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a representation made after an inordinate delay can be considered by the court and give rise to a fresh cause of action.
Whether Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, which mentions 'qualifying service of not less than 10 years', confers entitlement to retiring pension on a government servant with only 10 years of service.

Legislation cited

Fundamental Ruless. Rule 56(d)
Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978s. Chapter V, s. Chapter VI, s. Rule 33, s. Rule 36, s. Rule 43(2)

Subjects

service lawrepresentationlimitationstale claimpension entitlementqualifying servicereinstatementback wagesTamil Nadu Pension Rulesadministrative tribunalspecial leave petition

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 634

A C. JACOB ~.
'
V.
DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & MINING & ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.25795 of 2008)
OCTOBER 3, 2008
B
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH
PANTA, JJ.]

Service Law:
c Removal - Representation/claim by employee after in-
ordinate delay- Held: Courts should desist from directing 'con-
sideration' of such claims - On facts, the employee
unauthorizedly absented himself and suddenly appeared af-
ter 18 years demanding re-instatement and thereafter ap-
D proached Court - In such case, the Court cannot draw an
adverse inference against the employer for not producing
records, nor direct reinstatement with back-wages for 18 years.
Pension - Entitlement to - In Government department -
E Pension rules framed by State of Tamil Nadu - Specified
classes of pension mentioned in Chapter V of the TN Pen-
sion Rules including retiring pension - Minimum of 20 years
qualifying service required for retiring pension - Tamil Nadu
Pension Rules, 1978 - Chapter \/, r. 33 and VI, r. 43(2) - CCS
Pension Rules - rr.36 & 43(2).
F
The Petitioner had j-oined service in 1967. His ser- \ -
vices were terminated in 1982 for unauthorized absence ~
from duty and for taking up private employment without
prior permission. 'E:ighteen years later, the Petitioner gave
G. representation to the First Respondent praying that he
be taken back into service and thereafter filed an applica-
tion before the Administrative Tribunal, for direction to the
First Respondent to dispose of his representation.
The Tribunal directed the First Respondent to 'con-
H 634
- ..

C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 635
MINING & ANR.
I
---+"'
sider' the representation of the Petitioner within four A
months. The First Respondent rejected the representa-
tion of the Petitioner.
Aggrieved, the Petitioner approached the High Court
claiming service benefits by referring the said order of
rejection as the cause of action. A Single Judge of the High B
Court held that the Department had failed to establish that
7 it followed the mandatory requirements of s.17(b) of Tamil
Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules by issu-
ing a charge-memo, holding an enquiry and passing an
order of punishment and consequently the Court declared c
the termination of the Petitioner's service in 1982 as ille-
gal. On the ground that the Petitioner was already 59 years
old and it was impractical to hold an enquiry on account
of his health condition, the Single Judge held that the
Petitioner be deemed to have retired from service from D
'""(
18.7.1982 and directed that pension be sanctioned from
~)- that date. The Division Bench however held that the Peti-
tioner had not completed 20 years of qualifying service
as on 18.7.1982, and therefore, he was not entitled to pen-
sion. Hence the present special leave petition. E
Dismissing the petition, the Court
HELD:1.1. Every representation to the government
for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations
relating to matters which have become stale or barred by F
r/ limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without
""'"' examining the merits of the claim. In regard to represen-
tations unrelated to the department, the reply may be only
to inform that the matter did not concern the department
or to inform the appropriate department. Representations
G
with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking

"'~
relevant particulars. The replies to such representations,
cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or
dead claim. [Para 7] [645-F-H]
1.2. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A consider or deal with the representation, usually the
directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits,
being under the impression that failure to do may amount
to disobedience. When an order is passed considering
and rejecting the claim or representation; in compliance
B with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does
not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of 'ac-
knowledgment of a jural relationship' to give rise to a fresh
cause of action. [Para 8] [646-A-B]
1.3. When a government servant abandons service
C to take up alternative employment or to attend to personal
affairs, and does not bother to send any letter seeking
leave or letter of resignation or letter of voluntary retire-
ment, and the records do not show that he is treated as
being in service; he cannot after two decades, represent
D that he should be taken back to duty. Nor can such em-
ployee be treated as having continued in service, thereby
deeming the entire period as qualifying service for pur-
pose of pension. That will be a travesty of justice. Where
an employee unauthorizedly absents himself and sud-
E denly appears after 20 years and demands that he should
be taken back and approaches court, the department natu-
rally will not or may not have any record relating to the
employee at that distance of time. In such cases, when
the employer fails to produce the records of the enquiry
F and the order of dismissal/ removal, court cannot draw
an adverse inference against the employer for not pro- \ .
4-
ducing records, nor direct reinstatement with back-wages
for 20 years, ignoring the cessation of service or the lu-
crative alternative employment of the employee. Mis-
G placed sympathy in such matters will encourage indisci-
pline, lead to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault
and result in drain of public exchequer. Many a time there
is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial
burden, as a result of a routine order for back-wages.
H [Para 9] [646-C-G]
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 637
MINING & ANR.
~
1.4. There is a need for circumspection and care in A
issuing directions for 'consideration'. If the representa-
tion is on the face of it is stale, or does not contain par-
ticulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts
should desist from directing 'consideration' of such
claims. [Para 10] [646-H; 647-A] B
1.5. One fails to understan J how the Single Judge of
1 the High Court could declare a termination in 1982 as ille-
gal in a writ petition filed in 2005. One also fails to under-
stand how the Single Judge could find fault with the de-
partment of Mines and Geology, for failing to prove that a c
termination made in 1982, was preceded by an enquiry in
a proceedings initiated after 22 years, when the depart-
ment in which the Petitioner had worked had been wound
up as long back as 1983 itself and the new department
had no records of his service. The Petitioner neither pro- D
duced the order of termination, nor disclosed whether the
termination was by way of dismissal, removal, compul-
sory retirement or whether it was a case of voluntary re-
tirement or resignation or abandonment. He significantly
and conveniently, produced only the first sheet of a show
E
cause notice and failed to produce the second or subse-
quent sheets of the said show cause notice inspite being
called upon to produce the same. There was absolutely
no material to show that the termination was not preceded
by an enquiry. When a person approaches a court after
two decades after termination, the burden would be on F
'-i him to prove what he alleges. The Single Judge dealt with
the matter as if the Petitioner had approached the court
immediately after the termination. All this happened, be-
cause of grant of an innocuous prayer to 'consider' a rep-
resentation relating to a stale issue. [Para 11] [647-E-H; G
'K..... 648-A-8]
1.6. In the present case, taking advantage of the fact
the department did not have any records and by not pro-
ducing the order terminating his service, the Petitioner
vaguely alleged that he was 'terminated' from service in H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A the year 1982, without specifying whether it was by way 1''t-'
of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement or other-
,wise. If his termination was by way of dismissal or removal,
he would have forfeited his past service as also his pen-
sion and gratuity under the Pension Rules. [Para 12] [648-
B C-D]
1. 7. Even if it is assumed that the Petitioner was not
dismissed or removed, but was retired from service, the
contention of the Petitioner that as Rule 43(2) of the TNP
Rules (Rule 49(2)(b) of CCSP Rules) refers to "not less
C than 10 years service", any government servant who has
put in service of 10 years or more is .entitled to retiring
pension, is misconceived. The said rule does not relate
to 'entitlement' of pension nor does it prescribe the con-
ditions for eligibility, but only provides how the amount
0 of pension should be calculated in cases where the retir-
ing Government servant is entitle.d to pension under chap-
ter V of the pension rules, which regulates the 'amount'
of pension not only in case of retiring pension, but in case
of all classes of pension. [Paras 12, 17] [648-D; 651-8-D]
E 1.8. When Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(2) of
CCSP Rules) refers to payment of pension to a person
who has a qualifying service of not less than 10 years,· it
does not mean that the minimum period of service pre-
scribed for retirement pension is reduced to 10 years or
F that government servants who are dismissed/removed/
compulsorily retired by way of punishment, or those who
voluntarily retire before reaching the age of superannua-
\'t- /
tion with less than 20 years of qualifying service, become
entitled to pension. Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule 49(2){b)
of CCSP Rules), comes into play only when the Govern-
G ment servant is entitled to any of the classes of pension
enumerated under Chapter V of the Pension Rules. There-
fore, when Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (or Rule 49(2)(b} of
CCSP Rule) dealing with the quantum of pension refers
to a government servant retiring in accordance with the
H said rules after completing qualifying service of not less
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 639
MINING &ANR.
:-t"#\ than 10 years, it does not mean that pension is payable to A
persons who have not completed the required minimum
number of years (20 years) of service or to persons who
have forfeited their service on dismissal/removal from
service. Therefore, the Petitioner is not entitled to pen-
sion. [Para 17] [651-F-H; 652-A-B] B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Petition fore spe-
)f_ cial leave to Appeal (C) No. 25795 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 28.1.2008 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.A. No. 1097 ot c
2006
WITH
I.A. No. 1
M. Girec"'n Kumar, Avijeet K. Lala and Vijay Kumar for the D
Appellant
.; The Order f the Court was delivered by
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J., 1. IA 1 is allowed and the delay
of 56 days condoned. We find no merit in this Special Leave E
Petition. However, as the questions raised in this petition arise
repeatedly, we propose to pas s a reasoned order after refer-
ring to the relevant facts.
2. The petitioner joined service as a Drill Helper in June,
1967, in the Regional Mining Cell, Trichy, in the erstwhile State F
,,;
' -\· Geology branch of Department of Industries and Commerce,
State of Tamil Nadu. According to him, his services were termi-
nated in the year 1982, in pursuance of a show cause notice
dated 8. 7.1982. Nearly eighteen years later, the petitioner gave
representations dated 5.5.2000 and 21.7.2000 to the first re- G
spondent requesting that he may be taken back into service.
-~ As the enclosure (show cause notice dated 8. 7.1982) to the
said representation was incomplete, the first respondent called
upon him to send the complete document. Instead of complying
with the said request, the petitioner approached the Tamil Nadu H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

~...;___
A Administrative Tribunal seeking a direction to the first respon- ' I

dent to dispose of his representation. The Administrative Tri bu-
nal disposed of the said application on 19.12.2002, without
notice to the respondents, with a direction to the Director of
Geology & Mining (first respondent), to consider petitioner's
B representation dated 21.7.2000 and pas s an qrder thereon
within four months. In compliance with the said direction, the
first respondent considered and rejected the petitioner's rep- )('
resentations by order dated 9.4.2002. The relevant portions of
the said order referring to the facts, is extracted below :
c "The individual was sanctioned unearned leave on medical
certificate for 25 days from 7.10.1980 to 31.10.1980 and
he did not rejoin duty after the expiry of this leave. On
perusal of the first page of the Memo No.19093/E2/80,
dated 8. 7.1982, the individual has taken up private
D employment and has applied for leave on loss of pay for
two years from 1.1.1981 onwards vide his letter dated
'r
1.1.1981. In the memo dated 19.2.1981 of the State )(
Geologist, he was informed that his private employment is
against the Government Servants' conduct rules and hence,
E disciplinary action would be taken against him if his
explanation on the above was not received within 15 days
from the date of receipt of the memo. The above memo
was sent by Registered post to the address at Marthandam
in Kanyakumari District through the Assi stant Geologist,
F Regional Mines Cell, Tiruchi. The memo was returned to ...,__
the Assistant Geologist, RMC, Tiruchi, undelivered. ~ -,
Then another memo dated 6.8.1981 was issued to him
calling for his explanation in 15 days time as to why
discriplinary action should not be taken against him and
G his services terminated if explanations were not received
in time. The above memo was sent by Reg.istered Post
Acknowledgement due to the addres s "Singaliar Street,
)1 .
Marthandam Post, Kanyakumari District". The receipt of
the above memo was acknowledgment by his wife Smt.
H C. Stella Jacob, on 31.8.1981.
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 641
MINING & ANR.
~ On 10.9.1981, Thiru M. Ramaswamy, Assistant Geologist, A
RMC, Tirunelveli contacted his wife with his Geological
Assistant and had the information that he was working in
India and refused to inform the exact concern where he
was employed. The above information was reported by
the Assistant Geologist, RMC, Tirunelveli in his letter dated B
14.9.1981.
'j In spite of so many efforts taken by the office, he has not
even responded to the memo, which was received by his
. wife. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to him
vide memo dated 8. 7 .1982 by the State Geologist, Guindy c
by Registered Post (Acknowledgment Due) and the above
memo was received by him. He absented himself from
duty and kept silence for a long period (01.11.1980 to
4.5.2000). He has submitted representations (dated
5.5.2000 and 19.7.2000) and requested to permit him to D
rejoin duty. In his letter dated 5.5.2000, he has stated that
)- due to illness he has not attended duty and subsequently,
he was also terminated from service.
In this office letter (dated 28.8.2000) he has been
requested to produce the copies of the memorandum and E
other records issued by the State Geologist to him. But,
he has not produced the copies of the same.
The erstwhile State Geology Branch of the Department of

' _, Industries and Commerce was upgraded as a separate F
Department of Geology and Mining and is functioning as
a separate department with effect from 14.4.1983. The
Government issued order dated 15.3.1989 permanently
transferring the officers and staff of the State Geology
Branch to the new Department of Geology and Mining.
G
The name of Thiru C. Jacob is not finding a place in this
~.__ GO ..............
Thiru C_ Jacob absented from attending duties without
proper leave application. He has taken up private
employment without prior permis sion which is against H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A Government Servants' Conduct Rules and he has not
turned up for duty in time. He has absconded from duty
from 1.11.1980 to 4.5.2000 without intimating the reason
s for absenting himself. As he has completely absconded
from duty his name did not find a place in the list of officers
B and staff transferred to the new Department of Geology
and Mining vide GO Ms. No.1/lndustries (SIA 2)
Department dated 15.3.1989 from the erstwhile State
Geology Brahch of the Department of Industries and
Commerce. This clearly bring to light that the applicant
c was not con_sidered as a regular employee of the
Department of Industries and Commerce as he has not
followed the relevant rules and absented from attending
duties without proper leave application.
Thiru C. Jacob has not produced the second and
D subsequent pages of the memo issued to him by the State
Geologist, Madras in RC N0.19093/E2/80 dated 8.7.1982
for perusal. It is evident from the available records that the
individual stayed away from duty without any information
to the office and taken up private employment without prior
E permis sion. Therefore, his request for permitting him to
rejoin duty after a lapse of twenty years cannot be complied
with.
3. On 10.3.2003, the petitioner filed an original applica-
tion before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal for the fol-
F lowing relief :
"........ the applicant prays that this Hon. Tribunal be please
to call for the records of the first respondent dated
9.4.2002 and direct the respondents to grant service
benefits to the applicant within a time framed to be fixed
G
by this Hon. Tribunal. ...... "
In its counter to the said application, the respondents reit-
erated the reasons for rejection of the request, given in the or-
der dated 9.4.2002. They also specifically pleaded:
H
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 643
MINING & ANR.

'""1-" "It is submitted that the erstwhile State Geology Branch A
was under the control of the Director of Industries and
Commerce and during the year 1983 this Department of
Geology and Mining was formed as a separate
Department and functioning with effect from 14.4.1983
under the control of the respondent. Orders were issued B
by the government on GOMsNo.1, Industries (SIA 2)
Department, dated 15.3.1989 permanently, transferring
Y-
the officers and staff of the erstwhile State Geology Branch
of the Industries and Commerce Department to the new
Department of Geology and Mining and the name of the c
applicant is not finding a place in the GO which clearly
bring to light that the applicant was not considered as a
regular employee of the Department of Industries and
Commerce and it is evident that the applicant's services
were already terminated.
D
It is submitted that every efforts were taken to process the
...,, representations submitted by the applicant and the
-y
available records with the respondent were carefully
examined. Since some of the records are destroyed due
to efflux of time, the applicant was requested to furnish the E
second page of the memo issued to him by the State
Geologist, Madras, dated 8.7.1982 for perusal and the
applicant has not furnished the same but only furnished
the first page of the above memo with his representation
dated 5.5.2000. It is submitted that in the second page F
' there may be specific orders of the State Geologist with
+' reason s for termination of the services of the applicant."
4. The said original application was transferred from the
Tribunal to the Madras High Court. A learned Single Judge of
the High Court by order dated 13.4.2006 held that the depart- G
ment failed to establish that it had followed the mandatory re-
I ~-- quirements of section 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Dis-
cipline & Appeal) Rules by issuing a charge- memo, holding an
enquiry and pas sing an order of punishment. He therefore,
declared the termination of petitioner's service in 1982 was ii- H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A legal. As the petitioner was already 59 years old and it was ·~

impractical to hold an enquiry on account of the employee's
health condition, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ
petition by declaring that the petitioner was deemed to have
retired from service from 18. 7.1982 and directing that pension
B be sanctioned from that date and that the entire arrears should
be calculated and paid in eight weeks.
5. The order of the learned Single Judge was challenged \
by the respondents in an intra-court appeal. The Division Bench
allowed the writ appeal by order dated 28.1.2008. The Division
c Bench held that the petitioner had not completed 20 years of
qualifying service as on 18.7.1982, and therefore, he was not
entitled to pension. The said order is under challenge in this
petition. We propose to examine the following two issues aris-
ing in this case:
D
(i) The mod u s of representation adopted by several
claimants/petitioners to get over the bar of limitation/ '(
delay and laches. ·-x
(ii) Common error in as suming that 10 years service
E entitles a government servant of pension under the
pension Rules.
The modus of 'representation'
6. Let us take the hypothetical case of an employee who
F is terminated from service in 1980. He does not challenge the
termination. But nearly two decades later, say in the year 2000,
~·
he decides to challenge the termination. He is aware that any
such challenge would be rejected at the threshold on the ground
of delay (ifthe application is made before Tribunal) or on the
G ground of delay and laches (if a writ petition is filed before a
High Court). Therefore, instead of challenging the termination,
he gives a representation requesting that he may be taken back
~
~
to service. Normally, there will be considerable delay in replying
such representations relating to old matters. Taking advantage
of this position, the ex-employee files an application/writ peti-
H
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 645
MINING & ANR.

tion before the Tribunal/High Court seeking a direction to the A
employer to consider and dispose of his representation. The
Tribunals/High Courts routinely allow or dispose of such appli-
cations/petitions (many a time even without notice to the other
side), without examining the matter on merits, with a direction
to consider and dispose of the representation. The courts/tribu- B
nals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a
reply to his representation. Secondly they as sume that a mere
direction to consider and dispose of the representation does
not involve any 'decision' on rights and obligations of parties.
Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to c
'consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted,
the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on
account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to 'con-
sider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-
employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to
0
the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection
of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A
prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and
for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribu-
nals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions
ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and pro- E
ceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this
manner, the bar of limitation or the !aches gets obliterated or
ignored.

7. Every representation to the government for relief, may F
not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters
which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be re-
jected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the
claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the department,
the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern G
the department or to inform the appropriate department. Rep-
resentations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seek-
ing relevant particulars. The replies to such representations,
cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead
claim.
H
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A 8. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to con- ~
sider or deal with the representation, usually the directee (per-
I"
son directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the
impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When
an order is pas sed considering and rejecting the claim or rep-
B resentation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal,
such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to
some kind of 'acknowledgment of a jural relationship' to give
~
rise to a fresh cause of action.
9. When a government servant abandons service to take
c up alternative employment or to attend to personal affairs, and
does not bother to send any letter seeking leave or letter of res-
ignation or letter of voluntary retirement, and the records do not
·,.
show that he is treated as being in service, he cannot after two
decades, represent that he should be taken back to duty. Nor
D can such employee be treated as having continued in service,
thereby deeming the entire period as qualifying service for pur-
pose of pension. That will be a travesty of justice. Where an ·r.
')::
employee unauthorizedly absents himself and suddenly appears
after 20 years and demands that he should be taken back and
E approaches court, the department naturally will not or may not
have any record relating to the employee at that distance of
time. In such case s, when the . employer fails to produce the
records of the enquiry and the order of dismis s al/ removal,
court cannot draw an adverse inference against the employer
F for not producing records, nor direct reinstatement with back-
wages for·20 years, ignoring the ces s ation of service or the ~-
lucrative alternative employment of the employee. Misplaced
sympathy in such matters will encourage indiscipline, lead to
unjust enrichment of the employee at fault and result in drain of
public exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of
G
mind as to the extent offinancial burden, as a result of a routine
order for back-wages. -~
<--1 .

10. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the
issue only to emphasize the need for circumspection and care
H in issuing directions for 'consideration'. If the representation is
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 647
MINING & ANR.

~: on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show A
that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from direct-
ing 'consideration' of such claims.
11. The present case is a typical example of 'representa-
tion and relief. The petitioner keeps quiet for 18 years after the
termination. A stage is reached when no record is available re- 8
garding his previous service. In the representations which he
makes in 2000, he claims that he should be taken back to ser-
vice. But on rejection of the said representation by order dated
9.4.2002, he filed a writ petition claiming service benefits, by
referring the said order of rejection as the cause of action. As C
~!loticed above, the learned Single Judge examined the claim,
as if-it was;;";::~'~ claim made in time, finds fault with the respon-
dents for not prod~ mat~r!~!Jo_s!1ow that termination was
preceded by due enquiry and declareSffie-tefm-i~ ille-
gal. But as the appellant has already reached the age of slij5er:--e--__
annuation, the learned Single Judge grants the relief of pension
with effect from 18. 7 .1982, by deeming that he was retired from
service on that day. We fail to understand how the learned Single
Judge could declare a termination in 1982 as illegal in a writ
petition filed in 2005. We fail to understand how the learned E
Single Judge could find fault with the department of Mines and
Geology, for failing to prove that a termination made in 1982,
was preceded by an enquiry in a proceedings initiated after 22
years, when the department in which appellant had worked had
been wound up as long back as 1983 itself and the new depart- F
ment had no records of his service. The appellant neither pro-
duced the order of termination, nor disclosed whether the ter-
mination was by way of dismiss al, removal, compulsory retire-
ment or whether it was a case of voluntary retirement or resig-
nation or abandonment. He significantly and conveniently, pro- G
duced only the first sheet of a show cause notice dated 8. 7.1982
and failed to produce the second or subsequent sheets of the
said show cause notice in spite being called upon to produce
the same. There was absolutely no material to show that the
termination was not pre c e d e d by an enquiry. When a person H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A approaches a court after two decades after termination, the +
burden would be on him to prove what he alleges. The learned
Single Judge dealt with, the matter as if he the appellant had
approached the court immediately after the termination. All this
happened, because of grant of an innocuous prayer to 'con-
B · sider' a representation relating to a stale issue.
Pension for service of less than 20 years
12. In this case, taking advantage of the fact the depart-
ment did not have any records and by not producing the order
c terminating his service, the petitioner vaguely alleged that he I

was 'terminated' from service in the year 1982; without specify-
ing whether it was by way of dismiss al, removal~~ ~~rnpulsory '
retirement or otherwise. If his ter~~~~~;on was by way of dismis
s al or removaLh~-~:Siilci·i1ave forfeited his past service as also - ;

_.G.-h:~-jjensi0nand gratuity under the pension Rules. Even if it as )
sumed that he was not dismissed or removed, but was retired
from service, the question is whether he is entitled to pension
on the basis of 14 years of service.
13. The appellant relied on Rule 43(2) of the Tamil Nadu
E Pension Rules, 1978 ('TNP Rules' for short) to contend that on
completion of 10 years of service, a government servant is en-
titled to pension. Relevant portion of the said rule is extracted
below:
"(2) In the case of a government servant, retiring in ace
F ordan c e with the provi si on s of thes e rules after co m
pl eting qualifying servic e of not les s than 10 years ' the
amount of pension shall be appropriate amount as set out
below namely: ....... "

G (emphasis supplied)
As similar.contention is frequently raised under the corre-
sponding Rule 49(2)(b) of CCS Pension Rules ('CCS P Rules'
for short), we will for convenience refer to the corresponding
provisions of CS SP Rules also.
H
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 649
MINING &. ANR.

~ 14. Rule 43(2) relied on by the petitioner falls under Chap- A
ter VI of TNP Rules (corresponding to Rule 49(2)(b) in chapter
VII of CCSP Rules) dealing with 'Regulation of amount of pen-
sion'. The said rule relates to quantum and lays down how the
pen - sion of a retired government servant should be calculated
if he is entitled to pension. Entitlement to pension is governed B
by Chapter V of the said Rules, which enumerates the clas s e
s of pension and conditions for entitlement. The enumerated
classes of pension are :
Classes of Pension (vide Chap- CCSP Rules TNP Rules
ter V of Pension Rules) c
(i) Superannuation pension (Rule 35) Rule 32

- (ii) Retiring pension (Rule 36)
(iii) Pension on absorption in or (Rule 37)
under a corporation, com-
Rule 33
Rule 34
D
pany or body owned/con-
trolled by State/Central Gov- (Rule 37A)
ernment
(iv) Invalid pension (Rule 38) Rule 36 E

• (v) Compensation pension pay- (Rule 39) Rule 38
able on discharge owing to
abolition of the post
(vi) Compulsory retirement pen- (Rule 40) Rule 39 F
sion
(vii) Compassionate allowance to (Rule41) Rule40
Government servants who
forfeit their pension on being
dismissed or removed G
A government servant, whose case does not fall under any
of the clas s e s of pensions enumerated in Chapter V, is not ·
entitled to pension. If a government servant is not able to make
out entitlement to any clas s of pension specified in chapter V H
650 SUPREME -G9URT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A ~:~flraving
of the pension Rules, there is recourse to >-+--
the rules in the chapter dealing with regulation of amOWituf-pen- '
sion (c~a~terVI ofTNP Rulesor~hapterVll ofCCSP Rules)f~
determining the quantum of pension. .
15. Admittedly the petitioner was not 'superannuated'; nor
8 was he absorbed in any corporation/company/body owned by
state/central government; nor did he retire on account of any
infirmity which incapacitated him for service; nor was he dis-
charged on abolition of his post. Nor is he claiming compas
sionate allowance (on be -ing dismis s ed/removed after put-
C ting in service of an extent which would entitle him to pension
but for the dismis s al/removal). The only other categories of
pension are com - pulsory retirement pension and the retiring
pension. A government servant compul - sorilyretired from ser- --.....
vice as a penalty, may be granted by the authority competent to
D impose such penalty, pension at a rate not less than two-third '.
admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. If a
government servant is not otherwise ad -missible to pension,
he cannot obviously be granted pension on compulsory retire-
ment. There is no such grant in this case. That leaves us with (
E retiring pension.
16. Rule 33 of TNP Rules provides that a retiring pension
shall be granted to a government servant who retires, or is re-
tired, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 42 of the said
Rules. Rule 42 of TNP Rules provides that a government ser-
F vant, who under fundamental Rule 56(d), retires voluntarily or is
required by the appointing authority to retire in public interest
shall be entitled to a retiring pension. (corre-sponding Rule 36
of CCS P Rules which provides that a retiring pension shall be
gra.nted to a Government servant who retires, or is retired, in
G advance of the age of compulsory retirement in accordance with
the provisions of Rules 48 or 48-A of those Rules or Rule 56 of
the Fundamental Rules or Article 459 of the Civil Service Regula
tions and to a Government servant who on being declared sur-
plus, opts for voluntary retirement in accordance with Rule 29 of
H those Rules). The provision relating to retiring pension makes it
C. JACOB v. DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & 651
MINING & ANR.
~-r
clear that a minimum of 20 years qualifying service is required A
for retiring pension. It does not entitle a government servant to
retiring pension on completion of ten years service. Therefore,
the petitioner is not entitled to retiring pension.
17. The petitioner contends that if the minimum service for
entitlement to retiring pension was 20 years and not 10 years, B
,Y- Rule 43(2) would not have stated "qualifying service of not less
than 10 years". He contended that as Rule 43(2) of the TNP
ules (Rule 49(2)(b) of CCS P Rules) refers to "not less than 10
years service", any government servant who has put in service
of 1Oyears or more is entitled to retiring pension. The said con- c
tention is misconceived. As stated earlier, the said rule does
not relate to 'entitlement' of pension nor does it prescribe the
conditions for eligibility, but only provides how the amount of
pension should be calculated in case s where the retiring Gov-
ernment servant is entitled to pension under the chapter V of D
~ the pension rules. The said Rule regulates the 'amount' of pen-
'f sion not only in case of retiring pension, but in case of all class
e s of pension. Under Chapter V, in certain situations, a Gov-
ernment servant may be eligible for pension even where the
service is less than ten years. Rules 32, 36, and 38 of TNP E
Rules (Rule s 35, 38 and 39 of CC S P Rule s) do not pre s
cribe any minimum service for being entitled to pension, where
the cessation of service is on account of superannuation, or on
account of bodily or mental infirmity or on account of abolition of
..,, his post. When Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(2) of CCS
P Rules) refers to payment of pension to a person who has a
F
qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean
that the minimum period of service prescribed for retirement
pension is reduced to 10 years or that government servants
who are dismissed/removed/compulsorily retired by way of
G
' ;y '- punishment, or those who voluntarily retire before reaching the
' ,, age of superannuation with less than 20 years of qualifying ser-
vice, become entitled to pension. Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule
49(2)(b) of CCS P Rules), as noticed earlier, comes into play
only when the Government servant is entitled to any of the classes
H
652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A of pension enumerated under Chapter V of the Pension Rules.
Therefore, when Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (or Rule 49(2)(b) of
CCS P Rule) dealing with the quantum of pension refers to a
government servant retiring in accordance with the said rules
after completing qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it
B does not mean that pension is payable to persons who have
not completed the required minimum number of years (20 years)
of service or to persons who have forfeited their service on
dismis s al/removal from service. Therefore, the appellant is
not entitled to·pension.
C 18. Special leave petition is therefore dismissed as hav-
ing no merit.
B.B.B. Petition dismissed.