The Supreme Court ruled that pension cannot be denied to government employees without a specific rule allowing such denial. It emphasized that pension is a rightful benefit and not a privilege that can be arbitrarily withheld. The Court stated, “Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must emanate from any rule enabling the government for such denial.” This judgment reinforces legal protections for retired government employees.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court recently stated that any denial of pension benefits to a government employee must be based on a specific rule that allows the government to take such action.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra made this observation while granting relief to a clerk employed by a local authority in Jhargram, West Bengal.
The employee had been denied pension benefits due to unauthorized absences from work.
However, the Court noted that after several rounds of litigation, the authorities had opted to classify her absence as extraordinary leave. The bench also highlighted the absence of a formal departmental inquiry, which would have provided the employee an opportunity to defend herself.
The Court concluded that under these circumstances, the State could not deny her pension. It further stated that if an employee’s absence is recognized as extraordinary leave under Rule 175 and Rule 176(4) of the West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, it should not be regarded as unauthorized leave that would disqualify her from receiving pension benefits.
The Court added,
“Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must arise from a rule that enables the government to make such a denial. When the services have been regularized as extraordinary leave, they cannot be treated as unauthorized leave for the purpose of denying pension benefits. The respondents could only deny the pension by proving that the absence was unauthorized, not by failing to conduct an inquiry against her,”
The plea was filed by Jaya Bhattacharya, who had been appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Jhargram, in March 1986. She had been absent for 107 days while working with the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhargram, and then from June 29, 1987, to July 12, 2007.
Bhattacharya claimed she was prevented from signing the attendance register and returning to work, leading to a show cause notice for her unauthorized absence.
After a series of legal battles, including a writ petition to the High Court and a transfer to the State Administrative Tribunal, her case was eventually remanded, and a departmental inquiry was ordered.
In May 2011, the authorities decided to categorize her absence as extraordinary leave, but this classification did not grant her salary for that period.
Bhattacharya later sought pension and retiral benefits from the Tribunal, which ruled that the extraordinary leave did not meet any specific criteria under the 1971 Rules, thus disqualifying her from pension eligibility. After several unsuccessful appeals, she approached the Supreme Court, which ruled in her favor on February 25.
Among other points, the Court emphasized that no departmental inquiry had been conducted against her, stating,
“The appellant has been condemned unheard without undergoing a departmental inquiry, despite the Tribunal’s order… The respondents’ failure to conduct an inquiry cannot shift the burden onto the appellant to prove her case.”
Ultimately, the Court directed the West Bengal government to finalize Bhattacharya’s pension within three months, though it clarified that she would not be entitled to any arrear payments.
Case Title: Jaya Bhattacharya vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
