Case Summary: Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025) | Pension Rights and Procedural Fairness

Background and Procedural History

1. Initial Appointment and Alleged Unauthorized Absence

The appellant, Jaya Bhattacharya, was appointed as an L.D. Assistant in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Jhargram, on March 20, 1986. While posted in the Office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Jhargram, she allegedly remained absent for 107 days and subsequently from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007.

She claimed that she was prevented from signing the attendance register and filed a complaint on February 17, 1987.

2. Disciplinary Proceedings and Initial Legal Challenge

A show cause notice was issued to her on June 15, 1987, regarding unauthorized absence. She filed a writ petition which was later transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal, West Bengal, as T.A. No. 1843 of 1997. The Tribunal closed the proceedings on November 24, 2000, citing the absence of any departmental inquiry.

3. High Court and Tribunal’s Remand Order

The Tribunal’s order was challenged before the Calcutta High Court, which remitted the matter back to the Tribunal. On December 1, 2003, the Tribunal directed the Collector, Midnapur (West), to conduct a departmental inquiry into the appellant’s allegations that she had been prevented from working and denied salary.

The Tribunal also directed that she be granted an opportunity for a hearing.

4. Subsequent Developments and Regularization of Service

The appellant again challenged the Tribunal’s second order through Writ Petition No. 278 of 2004. The High Court directed the authorities to allow her to resume duty within 48 hours and pay any legitimately due salary.

On May 19, 2011, the government treated her absence from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007, as extraordinary leave and regularized her service under Rule 175 and Rule 176(4) of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971.

However, it was noted that extraordinary leave does not entitle an employee to a salary.

5. Denial of Pension and Tribunal’s Decision

The appellant sought pensionary benefits by filing O.A. No. 1347 of 2012 before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that since the extraordinary leave was not on grounds listed under Rule 28A of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971, it could not be considered a qualifying service for pension eligibility. The Tribunal relied on G.O. No. 201-F (Pen.) dated February 25, 2009, and rejected her claim.

6. Dismissal of Writ Petition and Restoration Petition

The appellant challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed due to non-prosecution. Her review and restoration petitions were also dismissed due to the inability of her advocate to assist the court on merits.

Supreme Court’s Observations and Judgment

1. Failure to Conduct a Departmental Inquiry: The Supreme Court noted that despite the Tribunal’s order dated December 1, 2003, directing the Collector to conduct a departmental inquiry, no such inquiry was ever conducted. The appellant had been condemned unheard, which violated the principles of natural justice.
2. Irregularity in Treating the Absence as Extraordinary Leave: The Supreme Court highlighted that the Tribunal and the High Court had relied on the appellant’s inability to prove that she was prevented from performing her duties. However, the Court emphasized that this burden should not have been placed on the appellant. If a departmental inquiry had been conducted, the facts regarding whether she was prevented from working could have been established fairly.
3. Denial of Pension Benefits Without a Legal Basis: The Court observed that pension benefits can only be denied if there is a specific rule enabling such denial. Since the appellant’s service had been regularized and her absence was treated as extraordinary leave, it could not be considered unauthorized leave for pensionary purposes. The Court found that the respondents had acted arbitrarily by denying her pension without establishing unauthorized absence through an inquiry.
4. Principle of Legitimate Expectation and Service Jurisprudence: The Court ruled that once service is regularized, it cannot be treated as a break in service unless explicitly stated by law. The appellant had a legitimate expectation of receiving pension benefits, given the government’s own decision to regularize her service.
5. Restoration of Pensionary Benefits: The Supreme Court directed the authorities to finalize the appellant’s pension within three months. However, the appellant was not entitled to arrears of pension.

The judgment reaffirmed the importance of conducting a departmental inquiry before taking adverse action against employees. The ruling ensured that pensionary benefits could not be denied arbitrarily when service was regularized. 

Implications of the Judgment

• Reinforcement of Natural Justice Principles: The judgment reiterates the necessity of conducting a departmental inquiry before taking punitive action.
• Impact on Pension Laws and Employment Rights: The ruling clarifies that when extraordinary leave is granted, it cannot be used to deny pension benefits arbitrarily.
• Guidance for Future Cases: The decision sets a precedent ensuring that employees are not unfairly penalized for administrative failures by government departments.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors. is a landmark judgment addressing employee rights, pension eligibility, and procedural fairness. By emphasizing the importance of conducting inquiries and preventing arbitrary denial of benefits, the Court has strengthened protections for government employees facing similar circumstances.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams