In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that pension benefits cannot be denied to an employee if their unauthorized absence has been treated as extraordinary leave and their service has been regularized. The landmark judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra in the case of Jaya Bhattacharya vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Background
The case pertained to Jaya Bhattacharya, a former Lower Division Assistant in the Office of Block Development Officer, Jhargram, West Bengal. She was appointed on March 20, 1986, but faced a long period of absence from duty, spanning from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007. She had alleged that she was prevented from performing her duties and signing the attendance register, while the authorities contended that she was on unauthorized leave.
Following a series of litigations, including multiple proceedings before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, her absence was ultimately treated as extraordinary leave by the government in 2011. However, despite the regularization of her service, she was denied pension benefits on the grounds that her period of absence could not be counted as qualifying service.
Important Legal Issues
The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were:
Whether an employee can be denied pension benefits when their unauthorized absence has been regularized as extraordinary leave.
Whether the denial of pension without conducting a departmental inquiry was justified.
Whether the burden of proof regarding her alleged unauthorized absence was wrongly placed on the appellant.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
The Court made several crucial observations in deciding the matter:
Failure to Conduct Departmental Inquiry: The Supreme Court noted that despite a clear direction from the Tribunal in 2003 to conduct an inquiry into the appellant’s claims, the authorities failed to do so. “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 bench observed.
Unilateral Decision to Deny Pension: The Court emphasized that pensionary benefits cannot be denied arbitrarily. “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 unauthorized leave for denying pensionary benefits,” the Court stated.
Regularization vs. Break in Service: The bench clarified that once the appellant’s absence was regularized through the grant of extraordinary leave, it could not be considered a break in service to deny pension. “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,” the judgment read.
Decision of the Court
In its final decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jaya Bhattacharya, directing the authorities to finalize her pension within three months. However, the Court clarified that she would not be entitled to arrears of pension.
“The appellant would be entitled to pension, and we accordingly direct the respondents/authorities to finalize the appellant’s pension within a period of three months. However, the appellant shall not be entitled to any arrears,” the Court ordered.
Case Details
Case Title: Jaya Bhattacharya vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 8850-8852 of 2024)
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
