Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2025

Citation: (2025) INSC 270

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can an employee be denied pensionary benefits after their services have been regularized by granting extraordinary leave? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Jaya Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal. The court clarified that once a period of unauthorized absence is regularized by granting extraordinary leave, it cannot be treated as a break in service for the purpose of denying pensionary benefits. This judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Case Background

The appellant, Jaya Bhattacharya, was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the Office of Block Development Officer, Jhargram on March 20, 1986. While working in the Office of Sub-divisional Officer, Jhargram, she was absent from duty for 107 days and later from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007. She claimed she was restrained from signing the attendance register. A show cause notice was issued to her on June 15, 1987, regarding her unauthorized absence.

Timeline:

Date Event
March 20, 1986 Jaya Bhattacharya appointed as L.D. Assistant.
February 17, 1987 Appellant submitted a complaint about being restrained from signing the attendance register.
June 29, 1987 – July 12, 2007 Appellant remained absent from duty.
June 15, 1987 Show cause notice issued to the appellant for unauthorized absence.
1997 Writ petition transferred to State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal (T.A. No. 1843 of 1997).
November 24, 2000 Tribunal disposed of the matter, closing proceedings.
2001 Tribunal’s order set aside by High Court in WP CT No. 270 of 2001, matter remitted back.
December 1, 2003 Tribunal directed departmental proceedings.
2004 Writ Petition No. 278 of 2004 disposed of, directing authorities to allow the appellant to resume duties.
July 13, 2007 Appellant allowed to join back.
May 19, 2011 Appellant’s unauthorized absence treated as extraordinary leave, service regularized.
June 7, 2011 Appellant informed she is not entitled to leave salary during the absence period.
2012 O.A. No. 1347 of 2012 preferred before the Tribunal for grant of pension and other retirement benefits.
July 13, 2023 High Court dismissed the writ petition in WPST No. 234 of 2015.
September 6, 2023 CAN No. 1 of 2023 in WPST No. 234 of 2015 dismissed by High Court.
December 21, 2023 RVW No. 275 of 2023 in CAN No. 1 of 2023 in WPST No. 234 of 2015 dismissed by High Court.
February 25, 2025 Supreme Court disposed of the Civil Appeals.

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the appellant filed a writ petition, which was later transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal, and registered as T.A. No. 1843 of 1997. The Tribunal closed the proceedings on November 24, 2000, stating that no departmental proceedings had been initiated. This order was challenged in the High Court in WP CT No. 270 of 2001, which set aside the Tribunal’s order and remitted the matter back.

See also  Supreme Court Addresses Transfer of Matrimonial Cases: Amruta Ben Himanshu Kumar Shah vs. Himanshu Kumar Pravinchandra Shah (2021)

On remand, the Tribunal directed the Collector, Midnapur (West), on December 1, 2003, to conduct a departmental proceeding regarding the allegations that the appellant had joined the office, signed the attendance register, but was not allowed to perform her duties and was not paid salary from May 1987 onwards. The respondents were directed to provide a hearing opportunity and pass an appropriate order regarding the payment of salary and allowing her to discharge her duties within four months.

The appellant challenged this second order in Writ Petition No. 278 of 2004, which was disposed of, directing the authorities to allow the appellant to resume her duties within 48 hours and to pay any legitimately due salary as per the Tribunal’s order. However, the respondents were not precluded from taking lawful action against the appellant.

Subsequently, on May 19, 2011, the appellant’s unauthorized absence from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007, was treated as extraordinary leave, and her service was regularized according to Rule 175 and Rule 176 (4) of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. The appellant was informed on June 7, 2011, that while she was allowed to rejoin on July 13, 2007, she was not entitled to leave salary during her period of absence.

The appellant then filed O.A. No. 1347 of 2012 before the Tribunal, seeking pension and other retirement benefits. The Tribunal held that since the extraordinary leave granted to her was not on any of the grounds listed under Rule 28A of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, the period of extraordinary leave could not be considered as qualifying service for pension, as per G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) dated February 25, 2009. Consequently, the order refusing pension was justified.

Challenging this order, the appellant filed a writ petition, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. Her review application and restoration petition were also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The case references the following rules from the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971:

  • Rule 175: (Source document does not provide details)
  • Rule 176 (4): (Source document does not provide details)
  • Rule 28A: (Source document does not provide details)

The judgment also refers to G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) dated 25.02.2009, concerning the conditions for qualifying service for pension/family pension.

Arguments

The core contention revolves around whether the period of extraordinary leave can be excluded from qualifying service for pension benefits. The appellant argues that since her service was regularized, she is entitled to pensionary benefits. The respondents contend that the extraordinary leave does not qualify as service under the relevant rules, thus justifying the denial of pension.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

  1. Whether the appellant is entitled to pensionary benefits after regularization of her service, considering the period of unauthorized absence was treated as extraordinary leave.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”

Issue Court’s Decision Brief Reasons
Whether the appellant is entitled to pensionary benefits after regularization of her service, considering the period of unauthorized absence was treated as extraordinary leave. Yes, the appellant is entitled to pension. Having regularized her service by granting extraordinary leave, the period cannot be treated as a break in service. The respondents failed to conduct a departmental inquiry despite the Tribunal’s order.
See also  Supreme Court settles the applicability of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act in cheque bounce cases: G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana (30 July 2019)

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite specific cases or books as authorities. However, it refers to:

  • Rule 175 and Rule 176 (4) of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971: These rules pertain to the regularization of service and treatment of extraordinary leave.
  • Rule 28A of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971: This rule lists the grounds under which extraordinary leave can be considered as qualifying service for pension.
  • G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) dated 25.02.2009: This government order stipulates the conditions for qualifying service to be entitled to pension/family pension.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that once the services have been regularized by treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave, it cannot be considered as unauthorized leave for denying pensionary benefits. The Court noted that the respondents failed to conduct a departmental inquiry despite the Tribunal’s order, which would have determined whether the appellant was prevented from performing her duties.

The Court directed the authorities to finalize the appellant’s pension within three months but clarified that the appellant would not be entitled to any arrears.

“How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?” in [TABLE]

Party Submission Court’s Treatment
Appellant Since service was regularized, entitled to pensionary benefits. Accepted. The Court held that regularization implies the period of absence cannot be a break in service.
Respondents Extraordinary leave does not qualify as service under relevant rules, justifying denial of pension. Rejected. The Court stated that the respondents should have conducted an inquiry to prove unauthorized absence.

“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”

  • Rule 175 and Rule 176 (4) of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971: The Court used these rules to emphasize that the regularization of service implied acceptance of the period of absence under specific conditions, which should not then be used to deny benefits.
  • Rule 28A of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971: The Court noted that the Tribunal had used this rule to deny pension, but the Supreme Court’s decision effectively overrides this interpretation in cases where service has been regularized.
  • G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) dated 25.02.2009: The Court indirectly addressed this order by stating that the denial of pensionary benefits must emanate from a rule, and the respondents could not rely on the absence of an inquiry to justify the denial.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The sentiment analysis indicates that the Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

  • The failure of the respondents to conduct a departmental inquiry as directed by the Tribunal.
  • The regularization of the appellant’s service by granting extraordinary leave, which implies that the period of absence was accepted under specific conditions.
  • The principle that denial of pensionary benefits must be based on a specific rule and cannot be justified by the absence of an inquiry.
Reason Percentage
Failure to conduct departmental inquiry 40%
Regularization of service with extraordinary leave 35%
Denial of benefits must be rule-based 25%

Fact:Law Ratio

Category Percentage
Fact (Consideration of factual aspects) 60%
Law (Legal considerations) 40%
See also  Supreme Court Orders De Novo Inquiry in U.P. Lekhpal Dismissal Case (23 September 2019)

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case (60%), particularly the failure to conduct an inquiry and the regularization of service, than by purely legal considerations (40%).

Logical Reasoning

For the issue of whether the appellant is entitled to pensionary benefits, the court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:

Tribunal orders departmental inquiry
↓
Respondents fail to conduct inquiry
↓
Appellant’s service is regularized with extraordinary leave
↓
Regularization implies acceptance of the period of absence
↓
Cannot treat the period as unauthorized absence for denying pension
↓
Appellant is entitled to pension

Key Takeaways

  • Regularization of service, especially when coupled with the grant of extraordinary leave, has significant implications for pensionary benefits.
  • Government authorities must adhere to directives for conducting departmental inquiries to ensure fairness and transparency.
  • Denial of pensionary benefits must be based on specific rules and cannot be justified by procedural lapses.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that once a period of unauthorized absence is regularized by granting extraordinary leave, it cannot be treated as a break in service for the purpose of denying pensionary benefits. This clarifies the legal position regarding the treatment of extraordinary leave in the context of pension eligibility.

Conclusion

In Jaya Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee cannot be denied pensionary benefits once their services have been regularized by granting extraordinary leave. The Court emphasized the importance of conducting departmental inquiries and adhering to established rules for denying pensionary benefits.

Category

  • Service Law
    • Pension
    • Regularization of Service
    • Extraordinary Leave
  • West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971
    • Rule 175, West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971
    • Rule 176, West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971
    • Rule 28A, West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971

FAQ

  1. Q: What happens if my service is regularized after a period of absence?

    A: If your service is regularized, especially with the grant of extraordinary leave, it implies that the period of absence is accepted under specific conditions. This can significantly impact your eligibility for pensionary benefits.

  2. Q: Can my pension be denied if I had a period of unauthorized absence?

    A: If the period of unauthorized absence has been regularized, it cannot be treated as a break in service for denying pensionary benefits. The denial must be based on specific rules and not procedural lapses.

  3. Q: What should I do if a departmental inquiry was not conducted despite a directive?

    A: If a departmental inquiry was directed but not conducted, it can be a significant point in your favor, especially if the lack of inquiry is used to deny you benefits. You should highlight this procedural lapse in your representation.

Source: Jaya Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal