Stale service claims and pension entitlement: belated representations cannot revive a barred claim, and 10 years' service alone is insufficient.

A stale service claim cannot be revived by making a belated representation and then challenging only the rejection of that representation; the later representation does not create a fresh cause of action, and delay or laches attached to the original claim remains fatal. Completion of 10 years' service does not, by itself, confer a right to pension; the qualifying-service rule operates only for computation where pensionary entitlement otherwise exists under the pension rules and does not dispense with the substantive conditions for pension. On both issues, the claim based on delay and the asserted service length was not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a stale service claim can be revived by making a representation and challenging only the rejection of that representation; (ii) Whether completion of 10 years' service by itself entitles a government servant to pension under the pension rules.

Issue (i): Whether a stale service claim can be revived by making a representation and challenging only the rejection of that representation.

Analysis: A delayed claim relating to termination of service cannot be revived merely by seeking a direction to consider a later representation. A representation made after an inordinate lapse of time does not create a fresh cause of action, and rejection of such representation does not wipe out delay or laches attaching to the original cause. Courts should not, by directing consideration of stale representations, indirectly reopen matters that had long become dead or barred.

Conclusion: The stale service claim could not be revived through the representation route, and the challenge was not maintainable on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether completion of 10 years' service by itself entitles a government servant to pension under the pension rules.

Analysis: The rule referring to qualifying service of not less than 10 years governs computation of pension where a servant is otherwise entitled to a pension under the relevant chapter. It does not create an independent right to pension. Entitlement depends on the kind of pension available under the pension rules, and retiring pension requires satisfaction of the prescribed conditions, including the necessary minimum qualifying service. A person who does not fall within the qualifying classes cannot claim pension merely because 10 years' service is mentioned in the provision dealing with quantification.

Conclusion: Completion of 10 years' service did not by itself confer a right to pension, and the claim to pension failed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the rejection of the belated service claim was unsustainable, and the claim for pension based on the asserted service length was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A stale employment or service claim cannot be revived by a later representation, and a provision referring to 10 years' qualifying service for computation of pension does not dispense with the substantive conditions for pensionary entitlement.

---