LexJAYA BHATTACHARYA versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1325 : 2025 INSC 270 Jaya Bhattacharya v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. (Civil Appeal No(s). 3254-3256 of 2025) 25 February 2025 [B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the entitlement of the appellant to pensionary benefits, when her unauthorised absence for twenty years was treated as extraordinary leave and her service was regularised. Headnotes† Service law – West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 – rr.28A, 175, 176(4) – Pensionary benefits – Entitlement, when unauthorised absence of leave treated as extraordinary leave – Appellant-government employee, remained absent from duty for 107 days and thereafter from 1987 to 2007 – Her allegations that though she joined the office and signed the attendance register, she was not allowed to perform her duties and was not paid salary from May, 1987 onwards – Series of litigations – In 2011, appellant’s unauthorised absence from 1987 to 2007 treated as extraordinary leave and service regularised, and was allowed to join back however, not entitled for leave salary during the period of absence – Application for grant of pension and other retiral benefits by the appellant – Tribunal held that the order refusing pension justified – Writ petition thereagainst dismissed by the High Court for want of prosecution – Review application and restoration petition also dismissed – Challenge to: Held: Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from any rule enabling the government for such denial – When the services have been regularized by treating the same as extraordinary leave the same cannot be treated as unauthorised * Author 1326 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports leave for denying the pensionary benefits – Thus, 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 – Furthermore, despite tribunal’s order directing the Collector to cause a departmental inquiry in respect of the appellant’s allegations, no such inquiry was ever conducted by the respondents/authorities – Appellant condemned unheard without subjecting her to any departmental inquiry – Respondents’ failure to conduct an inquiry as per tribunal’s order cannot shift the burden on appellant to prove that she was prevented from working – In view thereof, the appellant entitled for pension – However, not entitled for arrears of pension. [Paras 11, 12] List of Acts West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. List of Keywords Pension; Unauthorised leave; Extraordinary leave; Departmental proceeding; Denial of pensionary benefits; Break in service; Review application; Restoration petition; Unauthorised absence of leave treated as extraordinary leave; Signing of the attendance register; Period of absence; Grant of pension and other retiral benefits; Departmental inquiry; Unauthorizedly absence; Arrears of pension. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No(s). 3254-3256 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 13.07.2023, 06.09.2023 and 21.12.2023 of the High Court at Calcutta in WPST No. 234 of 2015, CAN No. 1 of 2023 and RVW No. 275 of 2023 respectively Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Rahul Arya, Madhav Bhatia, Rohit Amit Sthalekar. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Mantika Haryani, Ms. Astha Sharma, Bhanu Mishra. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1327 Jaya Bhattacharya v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the judgment and orders dated 13.07.2023 passed in WPST No. 234 of 2015, 06.09.2023 in CAN No. 1 of 2023 in WPST No. 234 of 2015 and 21.12.2023 in RVW No. 275 of 2023 in CAN No. 1 of 2023 in WPST No. 234 of 2015, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petition as well as Review Application on account of non-prosecution and the application for recalling the order dated 06.09.2023 met the same fate as the advocate remained unable to assist the Court on merits. 3. Although, the writ petition was not adjudicated on merits and the prayer in these civil appeals is for restoration of writ petition, however, considering long pendency of the lis for about 25 years, we deem it appropriate to decide the issue on merits. Factual matrix: 4. On 20.03.1986, the appellant was appointed and joined as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.