Twenty three years after a man was allegedly sacked by the Government and the Madras High Court declared his termination “illegal” and ordered all retirement benefits with retrospective effect; the Supreme Court has frowned upon the direction on the belated claim.In the case of one C Jacob, who was allegedly sacked in 1982, the apex court held that a person who approaches the court after such a long gap after his/her purported termination is not entitled to any such benefit.“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 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 the appellant had worked had been wound up as long back as 1983 itself and the new department had no records of his service,” the apex court observed.The apex court regretted that the single judge chose to pass the order despite the fact that Jacob neither produced the termination order, nor disclosed as to whether the termination was by way of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement or whether it was a case of voluntary retirement or resignation or abandonment.Jacob had joined as a drill helper in the the State Geology department at Trichy in Tamil Nadu. He claimed his services were terminated in 1982.Yet, he chose to approach the higher authorities and the administrative tribunal seeking reinstatement in the year 2000 and when it failed, knocked the doors of the Madras High Court.A single judge ordered that Jacob be paid all retirement benefits including pension with retrospective effect.On an appeal from the State Government a Division Bench of the High Court modified the order that since Jacob had not completed 20 years of qualifying service as on July 18, 1982 when he was terminated, he would not be entitled to pension, following which he filed the SLP in the apex court.The apex court after tracing the case history regretted the manner in which the single judge chose to give relief to Jacob.“When a person approaches a court after two decades of termination, the burden would be on him to prove what he alleges. The learned single judge dealt with the matter as if the appellant (Jacob) had approached the court immediately after the termination,” the apex court observed.The apex court said that Jacob had kept quiet for 18 years after the termination and at a stage when no record is available about his previous service, he made a representation to the authorities and thereafter the High Court.The apex court pointed out that there were no records available either with the authorities or Jacob after two decades to establish whether the employee was terminated and if so for what reason.In the absence of the relevant records, Jacob was not entitled to the pensionary benefits from 1982, the court said while dismissing his appeal.
