C. JACOB versus DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & MINING & ANR.

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 634 · Decided: 03-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 634 
C. JACOB 
V. 
DIRECTOR OF GEOLOGY & MINING & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No.25795 of 2008) 
OCTOBER 3, 2008 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH 
PANTA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
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. 
H 
The Tribunal directed the First Respondent to 'con-
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 B 
rejection as the cause of action. A Single Judge of the High 
7 
Court held that the Department had failed to establish that 
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 c 
order of punishment and consequently the Court declared 
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 
r/ 
relating to matters which have become stale or barred by F 
""'"' 
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 
be

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.