Jaya Bhattacharya Vs. The State of West Bengal: Supreme Court Rules Pension Cannot Be Denied When Absence Is Regularized as Extraordinary Leave

Introduction:

The Supreme Court has ruled that a government employee cannot be denied pensionary benefits if their unauthorized absence is regularized as extraordinary leave. The Court emphasized that once an employee’s absence is formalized through regularization, it cannot be deemed a "break in service" for pension purposes. The ruling was made in favor of Jaya Bhattacharya, a retired employee whose pension was denied despite her service being regularized. The Court also highlighted that the burden to establish unauthorized absence through a proper inquiry lay with the government authorities and that the failure to conduct such an inquiry could not be used to deny pensionary rights.

Background:

Jaya Bhattacharya was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Jhargram, on March 20, 1986. While serving in the Sub-Divisional Officer’s Office in Jhargram, she was prevented from signing the attendance register and subsequently remained absent from duty for 107 days, and then from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007. She had initially raised complaints about being denied her right to sign the attendance register and report to duty.

In response to her prolonged absence, she was issued a show cause notice on June 15, 1987, questioning why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against her. Despite multiple legal proceedings and her repeated attempts to return to work, the government failed to conduct a departmental inquiry. Eventually, in 2011, her absence was regularized as extraordinary leave, and she was reinstated to her post. However, upon retirement, her request for pensionary benefits was denied on the ground that her absence did not count toward qualifying service for pension.

The West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal and subsequently the Calcutta High Court upheld the denial of pension, leading her to approach the Supreme Court for relief.

Questions of Law:

1. Whether a government employee’s prolonged absence, when regularized as extraordinary leave, constitutes a break in service that disqualifies them from pensionary benefits.
2. Whether the denial of pension without conducting a departmental inquiry was legally sustainable.
3. Whether the burden of proving unauthorized absence lies on the employee or the government employer.

Findings and Rationale:

1. Absence Regularized as Extraordinary Leave Does Not Constitute a Break in Service: The Supreme Court observed that once an employee’s service is regularized through extraordinary leave, the period of absence cannot be retrospectively treated as unauthorized leave. The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra stated: “Having once regularized her service during the period of absence by granting extraordinary leave, it cannot be held that the said period can be treated as break in service.” The Court emphasized that government authorities cannot grant extraordinary leave and later deny pensionary benefits on the pretext that the employee was unauthorizedly absent.
2. Failure to Conduct a Departmental Inquiry Violates Principles of Fairness: The Court noted that the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal had directed a departmental inquiry into Jaya Bhattacharya’s alleged unauthorized absence. However, the State Government failed to initiate such an inquiry. The Court held that the government’s failure to follow due process meant that they could not later claim that her absence was unauthorized: “The respondents’ failure to conduct an inquiry as per Tribunal’s order cannot shift the burden on the appellant to prove that she was prevented from working.” The ruling reaffirmed that an employer cannot deny pension benefits without any legal basis or inquiry.
3. Burden of Proof on Employer to Justify Pension Denial: The Court rejected the State Government’s argument that Bhattacharya had to prove she was not absent without authorization. Instead, the burden lay on the government employer to establish through proper inquiry that her absence was indeed unauthorized and warranted pension denial. The Court ruled:“Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from any rule enabling the government for such denial.” By failing to prove its case, the State Government’s refusal to grant pension was held unjustified.
4. Reliance Placed: The Court cited West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, which regulate pensionary entitlements. The Court observed that the rules did not permit pension denial once absence was regularized as extraordinary leave. Additionally, the Court referenced previous judgments that emphasized due process in pension denial cases, reinforcing that failure to conduct departmental proceedings cannot be used against an employee.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court and Tribunal’s decisions and ruled in favor of Jaya Bhattacharya, holding that she was entitled to pensionary benefits. The Court directed the State Government to finalize her pension within three months, although without arrears. The ruling serves as a landmark decision reinforcing the rights of retired government employees and emphasizing that procedural fairness cannot be ignored when deciding pension matters.

Disclaimer

This post is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to defame, discredit, or tarnish the reputation of any individual, entity, or organization. The opinions expressed are based on publicly available judicial decisions and are aimed at fostering a better understanding of legal principles. For specific legal advice, readers are encouraged to consult a professional.