The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has ruled that an employee cannot be denied regularization and pensionary benefits due to the department’s failure to maintain and safeguard their service records. Justice Manish Mathur held that the responsibility for the upkeep of service records lies with the department, and it cannot take advantage of its own mistake to penalize an employee.
The judgment came in response to writ petitions filed by Satya Prakash Srivastava, who was denied regularization as a Review Officer and subsequent retiral benefits after his service book was misplaced by the authorities. The Court quashed the orders rejecting his claims and directed the State to regularize his service with retrospective effect from 2000 and grant him all pensionary benefits.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Satya Prakash Srivastava, was initially appointed as a Typist in 1979. He was subsequently promoted to Assistant Review Officer (ARO) on July 23, 1990, and later given an ad hoc promotion to the post of Review Officer (RO) on September 10, 1991.
A Selection Committee meeting was convened on November 23-24, 2000, to consider the regularization of ad hoc Review Officers. However, the petitioner’s case was not considered, while several of his juniors were regularized. The primary reason cited for this omission was the unavailability of his service book, which had been misplaced by the departmental authorities. Consequently, his service period from September 9, 1999, to December 6, 2004, was not considered, which ultimately led to the denial of his pension on the grounds of not completing the required qualifying service.
The petitioner challenged the orders dated July 29, 2014, and August 14, 2020, which rejected his representations for these benefits.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner, represented by Amicus Curiae Sheikh Wali Uz Zaman, argued that he was wrongly denied regularization solely because his service book was misplaced by the department. It was contended that the opposite parties were taking benefit of their own wrong. The petitioner also sought salary for a period during which he could not join a transferred post because he was not relieved by the concerned Minister’s office.
The State, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was not considered for regularization in November 2000 as he “was not found suitable by the Selection Committee.” The State’s counsel also claimed that efforts were made to contact the petitioner for his service records, but the details were not provided by him. Furthermore, the State pointed to a subsequent criminal case lodged against the petitioner in 2012 for embezzlement and a related departmental inquiry where a penalty of demotion was proposed but could not be implemented as he had superannuated on December 31, 2019. The State maintained that due to interruptions in his service, including a period treated as “no work no pay,” the petitioner had not completed the 10 years of qualifying service for pension.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Manish Mathur, after examining the records and hearing the arguments, observed that the petitioner’s right to be considered for regularization crystallized at the time of the Selection Committee meetings in November 2000. The court noted that no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him at that time.
The judgment emphasized that the only ground for the petitioner’s unsuitability indicated in the State’s counter affidavit was the unavailability of his service records. The court categorically rejected this justification, stating, “It is trite that the responsibility of safe keeping and upkeep of service records of an employee is upon the department itself and not the employee and in case such service records are missing or misplaced, onus is upon the department itself to complete such service details of an employee.”
The court further added, “In the absence of any such service records, the department cannot take benefit of such an omission nor such burden can be shifted upon the employee so as to deny him benefits to which he is justifiably expected.”
On the issue of pension, the court found that the State had erred in law by not counting the service period from 1999 to 2004, where the service book was unavailable. The court also held that another disputed period from August 2008 to January 2011, which the department itself had regularized as ‘leave without pay’, should also be counted towards qualifying service for pension. However, the court denied the petitioner’s claim for salary for this period, as he had not joined his transferred post.
The Decision
Finding the department’s actions unsustainable, the High Court allowed the petitions. A writ of Certiorari was issued, quashing the orders dated July 29, 2020, August 14, 2020, and July 25, 2022, which denied the benefits to the petitioner.
Furthermore, the court issued a writ of Mandamus with the following commands:
- The concerned authority must consider the petitioner regularized in service as a Review Officer from the date persons junior to him were regularized following the Selection Committee meeting of November 23-24, 2000.
- The opposite parties shall grant pension and other pensionary benefits to the petitioner, treating his entire length of service from 1979 till 2019 as qualifying service.
The competent authority has been directed to pass the necessary orders within eight weeks from the date a certified copy of the order is served.
