Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025)

Introduction 

This is a landmark judgment relating to pension entitlement following regularization of service and the requirement of departmental inquiry before denying benefits. 

• This judgment was delivered by a two Judge Bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Facts

The case involves a government employee's entitlement to pension after a prolonged period of absence from service. The key facts are: 

Background: 

• Jaya Bhattacharya was appointed as L.D. Assistant in the Office of Block Development Officer, Jhargram on March 20, 1986. 
• She remained absent from duty for 107 days initially, and then again from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007. 
• She claimed she was restrained from signing the attendance register despite attempting to join duty. 

Administrative Actions: 

• A show cause notice was issued on June 15, 1987, for unauthorized absence. 
• The appellant filed multiple complaints alleging denial of joining and non-payment of salary from May 1987 onwards. 

Tribunal Proceedings: 

• The State Administrative Tribunal initially disposed of the matter on November 24, 2000, stating no departmental proceedings had been initiated. 
• This order was challenged and set aside by the High Court, which remanded the matter. 
• On remand, the Tribunal on December 1, 2003, directed the Collector to conduct a departmental inquiry regarding the appellant's allegations that she was not allowed to perform duties despite joining. 
• The High Court in WP No. 278 of 2004 directed authorities to allow the appellant to resume duties. 

Regularization: 

• On May 19, 2011, the appellant's absence from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007, was treated as extraordinary leave. 
• Her service was regularized as per Rule 175 and Rule 176(4) of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. 
• She was informed she would not be entitled to leave salary during the period of absence. 
• She was allowed to join back on July 13, 2007. 

Pension Dispute: 

• The appellant filed O.A. No. 1347 of 2012 before the Tribunal seeking pension and retiral benefits. 
• The Tribunal concluded that the extraordinary leave could not be considered as qualifying service for pension purposes. 
• The Tribunal held that since the extraordinary leave was not granted on grounds listed under Rule 28A of the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, she was not entitled to pension. 
• The subsequent writ petition challenging this order was dismissed for non-prosecution, as were her review application and restoration petition. 
• The matter remained pending for approximately 25 years before reaching the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved 

• Whether the absence of a departmental inquiry as directed by the Tribunal affected the validity of actions taken against the appellant? 
• Whether the regularization of service by treating the period of absence as extraordinary leave entitled the appellant to pension benefits? 
• Whether pension benefits could be denied without conducting the mandated departmental inquiry? 
• Whether the burden of proof regarding the appellant's claim of being prevented from working could be shifted to the appellant in the absence of a departmental inquiry? 

Court’s Observations 

With Respect to Failure to Conduct Departmental Inquiry: 

• The Court observed that despite the Tribunal's order dated December 1, 2003, directing the Collector to conduct a departmental inquiry regarding the appellant's allegations, no such inquiry was ever conducted by the authorities. 
• The Court held that the appellant had been "condemned unheard" without being subjected to any departmental inquiry despite the Tribunal's explicit direction. 
• The Court noted that any observations by the Tribunal or High Court in subsequent proceedings that the appellant failed to demonstrate she was prevented from performing duties would not benefit the respondents, as this fact could only be established through a properly constituted departmental inquiry. 

With Respect to Burden of Proof: 

• The Court held that the respondents' failure to conduct an inquiry as per the Tribunal's order cannot shift the burden on the appellant to prove that she was prevented from working. 
• The Court observed that the respondents could have denied pension to the appellant only by proving through inquiry that she was unauthorizedly absent for the subject period, not by refusing to hold an inquiry against her. 

With Respect to Regularization and Pension Entitlement: 

• The Court held that once the services were regularized by treating the absence as extraordinary leave, the same period cannot be treated as unauthorized leave for denying pensionary benefits. 
• The Court observed that denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from a rule enabling the government for such denial. 
• The Court stated that 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 a break in service. 

Final Decision: 

• In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, considering the 25-year pendency and the regularization of service, the Court held that the appellant would be entitled to pension. 
• The Court directed the respondent authorities to finalize the appellant's pension within three months. 
• However, the Court clarified that the appellant shall not be entitled to any arrears. 

Conclusion 

• This is an important judgment that highlights the significance of principles of natural justice in service matters and the consequences of regularization of service. 
• The judgment establishes that authorities cannot deny benefits after regularizing service without conducting mandated inquiries, and that procedural lapses cannot be used to shift burden of proof onto employees.