Pension is a Right, Not a Charity: Supreme Court Slams West Bengal Government for Denying Benefits Without Inquiry

Once Service is Regularized, Absence Cannot Be Used to Deny Pension – In a landmark judgment Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of Jaya Bhattacharya, a former West Bengal government employee who was denied pension despite having her service regularized. The Court directed the State to finalize and grant her pension within three months, holding that denial of pension without a proper inquiry was a gross violation of justice.

"The government cannot first regularize an employee’s service and then refuse pension on the ground of absence. Such an approach is legally and morally indefensible," the Court observed.

The ruling brings closure to a 37-year-old legal battle, where Bhattacharya had fought relentlessly for her dues after the State allegedly prevented her from working and then accused her of unauthorized absence.

“An Employee Cannot Suffer for the Administration’s Inaction” – Supreme Court on 20 Years of Forced Absence

Jaya Bhattacharya was appointed as a Lower Division Assistant in the Office of the Block Development Officer, Jhargram, on March 20, 1986. However, she soon found herself entangled in an administrative dispute. She alleged that she was barred from signing the attendance register, leading to an absence of 107 days.

On June 29, 1987, she once again stopped reporting to work, but she claimed this was because the authorities refused to allow her to resume her duties. This absence lasted for twenty years, until she was finally permitted to rejoin on July 12, 2007.

The State’s response to her claims was punitive. Instead of investigating the circumstances surrounding her absence, the authorities issued a show cause notice for unauthorized absence. Bhattacharya repeatedly sought intervention, arguing that she had not willingly abandoned her post but was prevented from working.

"An employee’s right to work cannot be held hostage to administrative whims. If an inquiry was required to establish the truth, why did the State fail to conduct one for two decades?" the Court questioned.

“Tribunal Ordered an Inquiry, But the State Ignored It for Years” – Supreme Court on Government’s Failure to Follow Procedure

As Bhattacharya’s battle for justice continued, the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (WBAT) ruled in 2003 that a departmental inquiry was necessary to determine the truth. It directed the Collector of Midnapore (West) to investigate her claim that she had been prevented from working and to decide on her pending salary.

But instead of conducting this inquiry, the State ignored the order for years.

In 2011, the government issued an order treating Bhattacharya’s 20-year absence as "extraordinary leave" and regularized her service, but denied her pension on the ground that extraordinary leave does not count as qualifying service.

The Supreme Court took a strong stance against this delay and administrative negligence.

"The government cannot refuse pension simply because it failed to follow proper procedures. If an inquiry was necessary, why was it not conducted? The burden of proof cannot be shifted to the employee after decades of inaction by the State," the Court declared.

“The Government Cannot Speak in Two Voices”: Supreme Court Condemns the Contradictory Stand on Service Regularization

The Court pointed out a fundamental contradiction in the State’s argument. While the government regularized Bhattacharya’s service by treating her absence as extraordinary leave, it simultaneously denied her pension by treating the same absence as unauthorized leave.

"Once the State has regularized an employee’s service, it cannot later argue that the same period constitutes a break in service to deny pensionary benefits. This is a blatant contradiction and an abuse of administrative power," the Court remarked.

The Court further emphasized that denial of pension must be based on clear legal provisions, not arbitrary administrative decisions.

"Pension is not a matter of State generosity. It is a right earned through years of service. The government cannot withhold it on a whim," the bench observed.

“Denial of Pension Without Inquiry is a Violation of Justice” – Supreme Court Orders West Bengal to Grant Pension

After decades of legal battles, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jaya Bhattacharya, stating that she was entitled to pension. The Court directed the State government to finalize and disburse her pension within three months.

However, the Court denied her arrears of salary for the period of absence, stating that its ruling was based on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

"Justice delayed should not mean justice denied. The government’s inaction has already cost the appellant years of struggle. It cannot be allowed to strip her of her rightful pension now," the Court concluded.

A Judgment That Reinforces Employee Rights and Administrative Accountability

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Jaya Bhattacharya v. The State of West Bengal sets a significant precedent in ensuring that government employees are not arbitrarily denied their retirement benefits due to administrative lapses.

By holding that an employer cannot deny pension without conducting a due inquiry, the judgment reinforces the fundamental principles of natural justice.

"The right to pension is not a favor but a deferred wage for service rendered. The government must uphold its obligations fairly and transparently," the Court declared.

With this ruling, Jaya Bhattacharya finally secures justice after 37 years, bringing to an end one of the longest-running pension disputes in Indian judicial history.

Date of decision: 25/02/2025