Case Name: Jaya Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 8850-8852 of 2024)
Date: February 25, 2025
Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
“DENIED JUSTICE FOR 25 YEARS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES PENSION RIGHTS OF WRONGFULLY BARRED EMPLOYEE”
Case Name: Jaya Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). ___ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 8850-8852 of 2024)
Date: February 25, 2025
Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
FACTS OF THE CASE
The appellant, Jaya Bhattacharya, was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Jhargram, on March 20, 1986. She remained absent for 107 days and later from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007. She complained that she was not allowed to sign the attendance register. She was served a show cause notice on 15 June 1987 for unauthorised absence. She approached the Tribunal, which directed an inquiry, but the respondents never conducted it. Her petition for restoration of service was dismissed by the High Court, but her absence was later treated as extraordinary leave. When she applied for pension, it was denied on The ground that her extraordinary leave was not treated as qualifying service.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
Whether the appellant’s unauthorized absence could be treated as extraordinary leave for the purpose of pensionary benefits?
Whether the government authorities erred in not conducting a departmental inquiry as directed by the Tribunal?
Whether the denial of pension to the appellant was justified under the applicable rules?
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED
Rule 175 & Rule 176(4) of West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 – Pertains to the sanction of extraordinary leave and its implication on pensionability.
Rule 28A of West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 – Pertains to the qualifying service for the pension.
G.O. No. 201-F (Pen.) dated 25.02.2009 – Governs eligibility for pension and conditions for considering extraordinary leave as qualifying service.
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANT
The appellant argued that she was illegally excluded from signing the attendance register and was obstructed from discharging her duties. She argued that the government authorities did not conduct a departmental inquiry as mandated by the Tribunal. Since the respondents had taken her unauthorized leave into account as extraordinary leave and regularized her service, she argued that the same duration must be taken into consideration for awarding the pension. She argued that she was unheard punished, since the withholding of pension was done without finding out her unauthorized absence by an inquiry. The appellant argued that withholding of pension without an inquiry was contrary to the principles of natural justice and was arbitrary.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondents contended that the appellant was absent from duty for a long time and had been unable to establish that she was prevented from attending work. They held that the refusal of pension was consistent with Rule 28A of the West Bengal Service Rules, since extraordinary leave was not considered as qualifying service. The authorities contended that they had merely followed the law and that the burden of proof was on the appellant to establish that she was forcibly prevented from joining duty. They further asserted that the absence of an inquiry did not affect the outcome, as the appellant’s absence was undisputed and not covered under rules allowing pension for extraordinary leave.
ANALYSIS
The Tribunal had directed the authorities specifically to conduct an inquiry into whether the appellant had been illegally prevented from working. The non-conduct of such an inquiry was against the canons of natural justice, as the appellant was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to establish her claim. Further, the respondents themselves treated the absence as extra-ordinary leave, which implied that the service of the appellant was never technically terminated. As the respondents did not conduct an inquiry, the burden of proof should not have been placed on the appellant to establish that she was prevented from working. Denial of pension should have been on rules framed and not on non-holding of an inquiry.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court ruled that once service of the appellant had been rendered regular by interpreting her absence as extraordinary leave, it will not amount to break in service for pension purposes. The Court ordered the respondents to pay the appellant’s pension within three months’ time. She was not entitled to arrear of pension. The Court ruled that withholding of pension without holding departmental inquiry was not warranted.
CONCLUSION
The case also brings into focus the necessity of following due process in cases of labor. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the appellant, reiterating that non-issuance of compulsory inquiry cannot be made against an employee. The order provides administrative failure on the part of the authorities does not lead to arbitrary denial of pension benefits.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY SUBRAT ASHISH KHARE
