“You Delayed His Appointment for Five Years, Then Denied Him Pension for Not Serving Long Enough — That’s Bureaucratic Injustice”: Calcutta High Court Pulls Up State Government

“A Wrongdoer Cannot Take Advantage of His Own Wrong — Delay by the Government Cannot Be a Ground to Deny Pension”, - In a firm and eloquent judgment  Calcutta High Court came down heavily on the State Government for depriving a retired Medical Officer of his rightful pension due to a delay caused entirely by the State itself. In Dr. Satinath Samanta v. State of West Bengal & Ors., the Court held that the Government’s failure to act on a judicial order for over five years directly led to the petitioner falling short of the qualifying service needed for pension — and ruled that such deprivation violates not just legal logic, but fundamental fairness. 
“The law does not permit a party to benefit from its own wrong,” declared the Division Bench of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Supratim Bhattacharya, setting aside the order of the State Administrative Tribunal and directing the authorities to count the intervening years toward qualifying service. 
“He Served Since 1981, the Government Took Over the College in 1983 — Yet It Took Them 27 Years to Appoint Him” 
The Court noted that Dr. Satinath Samanta had been working at Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital since 1981. When the State took over the college in 1983, legislation provided that existing employees would be deemed government servants. Yet, the State failed to absorb Dr. Samanta, forcing him into a prolonged legal battle that included writ petitions and contempt proceedings. Even after the Court ordered in 2005 that he should be absorbed “against the next available vacancy,” the State waited until 2010 to issue his appointment order — with no retrospective effect. 

“The delay between 22.02.2005 and 20.04.2010 is entirely attributable to the respondents,” the Court held. “Sustaining such deprivation would amount to saddling the petitioner with civil consequences for the fault of the Government.” 
“When He Retired in 2018, He Had Only 8 Years of Service on Paper — But the Missing Years Were Stolen by Delay” 
Dr. Samanta retired on 31.12.2018, with 8 years, 7 months, and 15 days of recorded service. Since the minimum qualifying service for pension is 10 years, he was denied pension on a technical ground. The Court held that this shortfall was “entirely on account of the delay on the part of the respondents in issuing the appointment order.” 
Quoting the Supreme Court, the High Court reiterated, “He who prevents a thing from being done shall not avail himself of the non-performance which he has occasioned.” It further observed, “No employee can be made to suffer for the inaction of the employer, especially where the employer has failed to obey court orders.” 
“He Always Reserved His Right to Seek Retrospective Effect — There Was No Waiver, No Acquiescence” 
Rejecting the State’s argument that the petitioner never challenged the non-retrospective nature of the appointment, the Court pointed out that he had expressly reserved his rights In contempt proceedings, and had consistently pursued his case since 1988. 
“The petitioner joined service only after the State failed to act on clear judicial directions. His right to be considered absorbed had crystallized much earlier, and the subsequent delay cannot extinguish that right,” the Court said. 
 “He Didn’t Work in Those Years — But That’s Not a Bar to Counting the Period for Pension” 
The Court clarified that it was not granting back wages or treating the petitioner as in service for salary purposes between 2005 and 2010. It was merely counting the period as qualifying service for pension, as the delay in appointment during that time had no justification. 
“He cannot be deprived of the benefit of qualifying service only because the Government failed to do its duty,” the Bench ruled. 
Conclusion: Setting aside the Tribunal’s rejection of the petitioner’s pension claim, the Calcutta High Court directed the State to recompute his qualifying service, treating the five-year delay as part of service for pension purposes, and release minimum pension with arrears within eight weeks, along with a calculation sheet. 
“The Tribunal’s decision is unsustainable… The delay was not the petitioner’s doing, and the State cannot now rely on that very delay to deny him his rightful pension.” 
This judgment not only provides relief to Dr. Samanta but reaffirms a foundational principle: where the State delays justice, it must not also deny rights. 
 
Date of Decision: April 17, 2025