A war veteran seeks justice in a 33-year battle over his ONGC retirement dispute
K.S. Nagarajan
I am K.S. Nagarajan, a 1971 war veteran and innovator approaching 79. I have appealed to a larger bench of the Central Information Commission (CIC), seeking intervention in my decades-long dispute with the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC). My appeal is not merely about retirement benefits; it is also about accountability, the fair application of rules and the responsibility of public institutions to honour their commitments.
In my appeals, CIC/PRSEC/A/2025/100192 and 100232, I have explained that I have been approaching various authorities since 1993 and pursuing judicial remedies since 2002. Despite years of representations and litigation, I believe my grievance remains without a satisfactory resolution.
At the heart of my dispute is my allegation that ONGC failed to honour commitments concerning my voluntary retirement and the transfer of my provident fund, leaving important questions about my retirement benefits unresolved. My case involves proceedings before the Madras High Court, subsequent litigation and communications concerning the implementation of retirement-related terms.
I maintain that an understanding reached during discussions with ONGC officials on October 28, 2002, was not properly implemented. I have also alleged that a relevant written order went missing and that difficulties in tracing records subsequently complicated my efforts to secure relief. I remain concerned about the handling of my representations and ONGC’s submissions during the judicial proceedings.
These are serious allegations that must be examined against the relevant records and judicial orders. Nevertheless, the prolonged nature of my dispute raises a fundamental question: should an employee have to spend decades seeking a clear and fair administrative decision?
I believe the applicable pension provisions, including Rules 19 and 37(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and relevant government instructions, deserve fresh examination in the context of my case. My contention is that an employee should not be made to suffer for administrative delays attributable to officials. Where responsibility for such delays can be established, it should be examined fairly rather than automatically placing the burden on the employee.
My subsequent legal proceedings include Writ Appeal No. 1384/2008 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 292/2012. I believe that important aspects of my representations and the commitments I have cited warrant closer scrutiny. I am seeking a fair examination of the issues I have repeatedly raised, in accordance with the applicable law and judicial orders.
My latest appeal follows a CIC hearing on September 7, 2026. I understand that the Commission’s consideration focused on Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, which defines the information accessible under the Act. I have therefore appealed to a larger bench, urging it to consider my plea under Section 18 and examine the scope of relief lawfully available in the circumstances.
Specifically, I have requested the Commission to consider directing the Secretary of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and ONGC’s Board of Directors to reopen the disputed file, hear me and take a fresh decision on the commitments and benefits I believe remain outstanding. I also want my representations and the relevant records, including the recommendations I attribute to the then Functional Director, to be examined before a reasoned decision is taken.
I had earlier submitted a representation to the President of India on May 23, 2024, seeking the constitution of a committee to review the implementation of Article 51A of the Constitution, which enumerates citizens’ fundamental duties. I was disappointed that, in my view, the handling of my representation did not result in the substantive intervention I had sought.
My appeal invokes Articles 51A and 37 in support of a broader argument about constitutional values, responsible governance and accountability. I also refer to Article 33 in the context of the sacrifices made by defence personnel to protect the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. While these constitutional provisions have distinct legal purposes, I believe the principles of duty, fairness and public accountability should inform the functioning of our institutions.
There is a deeply personal dimension to this prolonged struggle. I am approaching 79, suffer from Parkinson’s disease, and have experienced poor eyesight and fever. In view of my age and health, I have requested that the delay in filing my appeal be condoned and that the matter be heard at the earliest.
The years spent pursuing this dispute have also taken time away from the work I value most. As an innovator, I want to devote the remainder of my life to supporting innovators and incubators across scientific disciplines. I do not wish to spend whatever productive years remain to me repeatedly pursuing the same grievance before different authorities.
I recognise that the CIC must act within the powers conferred upon it by law. The question of reopening my underlying service dispute may also require consideration by the competent administrative or judicial authority. I request that the Commission examine my appeal within its lawful jurisdiction and consider what appropriate directions or remedies may be available.
After decades of pursuing relief, I seek a fair hearing, a careful examination of the records and a reasoned decision. I am not asking for the law to be set aside in my favour; I am asking that the applicable rules and commitments be examined fairly, without administrative omissions or procedural complications defeating a legitimate claim.
My appeal is ultimately about more than one individual dispute. It is about the confidence citizens must be able to place in public institutions and the need for accountability when grievances remain unresolved for prolonged periods.
When a citizen spends decades seeking a decision from public institutions, should the passage of time itself become another obstacle to justice?
