Service Law – Termination – Claim for reinstatement – Belated claim – Termination of Respondent in the year 1974 – She made several representations, one after the other, but did not approach any judicial or quasi-judicial forum – After enactment of Right to Information Act, 2005, whereunder the State Information Commission came to be constituted, the respondent moved before the said Commission – The Commission passed an Order on 05.03.2009 asking the appellant-authorities to communicate the decision on the representations of respondent – In this backdrop communication dated 04.06.2009 was issued by the District Basic Education Officer, which according to respondent revived her pending claim – Held: On facts, claim of respondent was stale, highly belated, time barred – The same ought not to have been entertained by the State Public Services Tribunal or the High Court after a span of over three decades – Respondent like any vigilant citizen, especially given that she does not belong to economically or socially backward segments of the society, was expected to assert her rights before an appropriate forum within a reasonable time – Repeated representations neither give rise nor revive the cause of action, if it had already arisen in the past – Respondent was required to seek a declaration of her continuity or have a writ of mandamus issued for her reinstatement – She did not do either – State Information Commission is not a forum which either could declare the rights of the respondent or grant any service benefits – Respondent’s move before the State Information Commission was thus an exercise in futility – Respondent slept over her rights for a long duration of over 33 years – She waived her rights to raise objections in this regard and is deemed to have abandoned her employment – Challenge of respondent to the deemed order of termination or abandonment of employment before the State Public Services Tribunal in 2010 was hopelessly time-barred u/s 5 of the 1976 Act – However in the circumstances of the case, appellants also partially responsible for engendering hope in respondent at a juncture when she was nearing the age of superannuation – Appellants to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- – U.P. Public Services (Tribunal) Act, 1976 – s.5 – Right to Information Act, 2005.
Service Law – Judicial approach in service matters – Held: Undue sympathy and a perceived liberal approach by a judicial forum can lead to significant adverse consequences – It not only gives rise to illegitimate expectations in the mind of fence sitting employees, but also leads to undue burdens on the public exchequer – Indulgence shown by a Court solely on equitable considerations, dehors the law, breeds indiscipline in public services and incorrigible employees start looking for a dividend on the period of their absence or for dereliction of duty.
Service Law – Service disputes – Appropriate forum – Held: State Information Commission is not a forum to adjudicate service disputes – Right to Information Act, 2005.
C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and Other (2008) 10 SCC 115 : [2008] 14 SCR634 – relied on. Basic Shiksha Parishad and Another v. Sugna Devi (Smt.) and Others (2004) 9 SCC 68 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 759 and Union of India and Ors. v. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 652 : [2008] 12 SCR 903 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.