A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Jaya Bhattacharya v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 3254–3256 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India, 25 Feb. 2025) deals with entitlement to pensionary benefits where a long period of unauthorised absence was subsequently regularised as extraordinary leave under the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971. The appellant an L.D. Assistant remained absent from duty first for 107 days and thereafter from 29.06.1987 to 12.07.2007.

Although she alleged that she had joined, signed the attendance register and was prevented from performing duties and paid no salary from May 1987, no departmental inquiry was conducted despite directions to do so by the State Administrative Tribunal. The respondents treated the period as extraordinary leave (Rule 175 and Rule 176(4)) and allowed resumption but denied leave salary; the Tribunal held that the period did not qualify for pension under Rule 28A and relevant Government Order G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) dated 25.02.2009.

The High Court dismissed the writ for want of prosecution. The Supreme Court held that once service is regularised by treating absence as extraordinary leave, the same cannot be treated as a break in service for the purpose of denying pensionary benefits; denial must have a statutory basis and—importantly—cannot rest on the failure of the authority to conduct the departmental inquiry ordered by the Tribunal. In the peculiar facts, the Court directed grant of pension prospectively (no arrears) and required finalisation within three months.

Keywords: Pension; Extraordinary leave; Unauthorised absence; Departmental inquiry; Break in service.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Jaya Bhattacharya v. The State of West Bengal & Ors..

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 3254–3256 of 2025.

iii) Judgement Date: 25 February 2025.

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Mr Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

vi) Author: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J..

vii) Citation: [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1325 : 2025 INSC 270.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 Rule 28A, Rule 175, Rule 176(4); G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.), 25.02.2009.

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None recorded in the judgment.

x) Related Law Subjects: Service Law, Administrative Law, Pension & Retirement Benefits, Departmental Discipline.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present litigation spans nearly 25 years and engages the core administrative law questions of procedural fairness, the legal significance of treating an absence as extraordinary leave, and the statutory limits upon denial of pension. The appellant joined government service in March 1986 as an L.D. Assistant and, after initial shorter absence, remained off duty in the period 29.06.1987–12.07.2007. She consistently maintained that she had physically joined and signed attendance but was prevented from discharging duties and was not paid salary from May 1987.

That factual assertion generated administrative notices, litigations and ultimately an order in 2011 regularising the prolonged absence as extraordinary leave under Rules 175 and 176(4), with refixation of pay on resumption but denial of leave salary. The Tribunal—when asked to consider pension entitlement held that the extraordinary leave granted did not fall under the grounds in Rule 28A and consequently did not constitute qualifying service for pension as per G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.), 25.02.2009. Parallelly, despite a direction by the Tribunal in 2003 for departmental inquiry into the appellant’s claim that she was prevented from working, the authorities never conducted that inquiry.

Because the High Court dismissed the writ for want of prosecution, the case reached the Supreme Court where the Court chose to decide the merits in view of the prolonged pendency. The judgment frames the legal problem squarely: whether an absence once regularised as extraordinary leave can later be treated as a break in service to deny pensionary benefits and whether failure to hold the directed departmental inquiry can be used by the employer to shift the burden of proof onto the employee.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant was appointed on 20.03.1986 as L.D. Assistant and worked at the Office of Block Development Officer, Jhargram and at the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jhargram. After an initial period of 107 days absence, she again remained absent from 29.06.1987 to 12.07.2007. On 17.02.1987 she complained that she was restrained from signing the attendance register. On 15.06.1987 a show-cause notice was issued to her for unauthorised absence; she replied and also wrote to the Secretary, Board of Revenue alleging denial of joining and non-payment of salary from May 1987. The appellant’s challenge travelled through writ jurisdiction to the State Administrative Tribunal (T.A. No. 1843 of 1997).

The Tribunal initially closed proceedings in 2000 for want of departmental action; the High Court set that order aside and remitted the matter. On remand, by order dated 01.12.2003, the Tribunal directed the Collector, Midnapur (West) to cause departmental proceedings into the allegation that the appellant had joined, signed attendance but was prevented from working and had not been paid salary; further it directed opportunity of hearing and decision within four months.

A subsequent writ directed respondents to permit her to resume duties and pay legitimately due salary; respondents were not precluded from taking lawful action. On 19.05.2011 respondents treated the period 29.06.1987–12.07.2007 as extraordinary leave under Rule 175 and Rule 176(4), allowed re-fixation of pay on resumption but denied leave salary. The appellant’s OA (No. 1347 of 2012) seeking pension was dismissed by Tribunal on the ground that extraordinary leave was not granted on grounds enumerated in Rule 28A and therefore did not qualify as service for pension under the G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) dated 25.02.2009.

The High Court dismissed the writ for want of prosecution and review/restoration applications were dismissed, leading to the present appeal. Crucially, the departmental inquiry ordered in 2003 was never conducted by the authorities.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether a period of absence which has been administratively regularised as extraordinary leave can thereafter be treated as a break in service so as to deny pensionary benefits?

2. Whether denial of pension can be sustained where the employer failed to conduct a departmental inquiry ordered by the Tribunal into the employee’s allegation that she was prevented from performing duties?

3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the extraordinary leave did not qualify as pensionable service because it did not fall within the grounds listed in Rule 28A and the relevant Government Order?

4. What relief, if any, is permissible where administrative regularisation has occurred but litigatory delay and procedural lapses exist on both sides?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Petitioner/Appellant submitted that the prolonged period of absence must be viewed in light of the appellant’s continual assertion that she physically joined, signed the attendance register and was prevented from performing duties and paid no salary from May 1987.

They urged that the Tribunal had directed a departmental inquiry (01.12.2003) specifically to test these factual contentions and that the respondents’ failure to hold that inquiry deprived the appellant of an opportunity to prove prevention from work. The appellant relied upon the administrative act of regularisation as extraordinary leave (19.05.2011) and argued that once regularised, the period cannot be treated as unauthorised absence to deny pension. Further, they contended that denial of pension requires a statutory basis; administrative inaction cannot be converted into a break of service for pension purposes.

The appellant sought pension and related retiral benefits, and alternatively argued for at least equitable consideration given the long pendency and respondents’ dereliction in not holding the inquiry.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the Respondent submitted that the extraordinary leave granted did not fall within the permissible grounds under Rule 28A and the impugned G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) excluded such periods from qualifying service for pension. They relied upon the Tribunal’s factual conclusion that the extraordinary leave was not of a kind to count towards pension and justified refusal accordingly.

Respondents further relied upon the procedural history and argued that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof to show she was prevented from working, and that remedies were available but not pursued effectively by the appellant (citations to non-prosecution at High Court stage). On these bases they urged dismissal of the claim for pension and any arrears.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 — Rule 28A (grounds for special leave/conditions for leave counting as qualifying service).

ii. Rule 175 (provisions concerning grant and consequences of extraordinary leave).

iii. Rule 176(4) (effect on pay/regularisation on resumption).

iv. G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) dated 25.02.2009 (policy instruction on qualification of leave periods for pension/family pension).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court, speaking through Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., resolved the appeals on merits despite procedural dismissals below because of the long pendency and the central legal question. The Court found dispositive the administrative act of treating the long absence as extraordinary leave on 19.05.2011 and the absence of any departmental inquiry into the appellant’s allegation that she had in fact joined and was restrained from performing duties.

The judgment emphasised two legal propositions. First, denial of pensionary benefits must flow from a statutory rule that permits such denial; administrative irregularity or failure to prosecute cannot by itself create a rule of forfeiture. Second, where the employer itself regularises absence as extraordinary leave, that act cannot be retroactively characterised as unauthorised absence to defeat pension the regularisation operates to remove the break-in-service label.

The Tribunal’s conclusion that the extraordinary leave was not a qualifying ground under Rule 28A for pensionation was examined but the Court held that such factual determination could only properly be made if a departmental inquiry was held to test allegations that she had been prevented from working. Because the respondents failed to comply with the Tribunal’s direction of 01.12.2003 to hold a departmental inquiry, the burden could not be shifted to the appellant to unilaterally prove the prevention defence in the absence of the inquiry.

In consequence, the Court found in favour of the appellant and directed the respondents to finalise pension within three months, but refused to grant arrears. The Court thus balanced relief (prospective grant of pension) with recognition of the extensive delay and complexity in the administrative record.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The core ratio is that administrative regularisation of service by treating absence as extraordinary leave precludes treating the same period as a break in service for pension denial purposes unless there is a statutory foundation permitting such denial. In other words, once the authorities have regularised the period, they cannot later rely on the very irregularity they declined to prosecute to disqualify the employee from pension.

Additionally, the duty to provide departmental inquiry where directed by a Tribunal is not a mere formality; failure to conduct it cannot be used to penalise the employee by shifting the evidentiary burden. Therefore, denial of pension requires a rule-based justification and due process by way of inquiry before adverse characterisation of service is made. This principle governs the appellant’s entitlement to pension though not to arrears.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed, obiter, that courts and tribunals should be cautious in allowing administrative lacunae or procedural non-compliance to strip employees of fundamental service entitlements when the employer itself has taken a regularising step. The judgment further commented that while administrative orders such as G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.) and Rule 28A set out non-qualifying categories, their application must respect the sequence of administrative action and give effect to earlier regularisation unless a proper inquiry demonstrates malafides or deliberate unauthorized desertion.

The Court also noted that litigation delay and the employee’s procedural lapses cannot entirely absolve the employer from the obligation to enquire when ordered by competent tribunal. These remarks serve as guidance for administrative agencies and adjudicatory bodies in analogous disputes.

1. Where a Tribunal directs a departmental inquiry into allegations about attendance and prevention from duty, the employer must comply and hold the inquiry within a reasonable time; failure to do so may preclude reliance on the absence as unauthorised.

2. Administrative regularisation of absence as extraordinary leave operates to remove the label of break-in-service for pension purposes unless statutory provision otherwise mandates.

3. Denial of pensionary benefits must be founded on explicit rule or Government Order; mere administrative convenience or non-adjudicatory findings cannot be the basis for denial.

4. In long-running service disputes, appellate courts may decide merits to prevent continued litigation where rights have been in limbo for decades; relief may be tailored (e.g., pension granted prospectively, no arrears) to reflect equities and delay.

5. Authorities should ensure clear contemporaneous records of attendance and decisions relating to re-fixation of pay and grant or denial of leave salary to avoid post-hoc controversies about qualifying service.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s decision vindicates the principle that substance and due process prevail over procedural shortcuts when pensionary rights are at stake. By insisting that denial of pension must be traceable to statutory authority and by emphasising the significance of a departmental inquiry ordered by a competent tribunal, the Court strengthened procedural protections of government employees facing prolonged administrative disputes. Practically, the decision prevents the executive from benefiting from its own inaction: the respondents could not, having regularised absence, turn around and deny pension on grounds that would have been tested in the inquiry they failed to hold.

The Court’s refusal to grant arrears, however, reflects a pragmatic tempering of relief in light of the long delay and the mixed procedural conduct of the parties. For administrative authorities the judgment is a caution: regularisation carries consequences and must be implemented consistently; where allegations of prevention from duty exist, authorities should conduct prompt inquiries to establish the true factual matrix.

For litigants and service law practitioners, the case reiterates that tribunal directions for inquiry are not frivolous adjuncts but necessary processes integral to fact-finding; the failure to obey such directions is not a neutral event but one that may prejudice the enforcing party. Finally, the ruling underscores that pension rights, though statutory, are grounded in both rule application and fair process; neither should be sacrificed to administrative inertia.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. None other than the present judgment appear in the provided document.

b. Important Statutes & Government Orders Referred

i. West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 (including Rule 28A, Rule 175, Rule 176(4)).
ii. G.O. NO. 201-F (Pen.), 25.02.2009 (policy on qualifying service for pension).