Jaya Bhattacharya v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (2025)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court held that when a long period of absence is later regularized as extraordinary leave, the State cannot treat that same period as a break in service to deny pension—unless clear rules allow it. Here, no departmental inquiry was held despite a tribunal’s direction. The Court ruled that the burden to prove unauthorised absence lay with the authorities, not the employee. Pension was ordered to be finalized within three months, without arrears, given the case’s long history.

Issues

• Can pension be refused after service is regularized by treating absence as extraordinary leave?
• Is a departmental inquiry mandatory before denying retiral benefits on the ground of unauthorised absence?
• Does failure to hold the inquiry shift the burden of proof to the employee?
• Do later observations by courts replace the need for a proper fact-finding inquiry?

Rules

• West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 – regularization and qualifying service.
• West Bengal Service Rules, Rule 28A – grounds for extraordinary leave.
• Natural justice – right to be heard before adverse action.
• Administrative law – burden on the authority to establish misconduct through due process.

Arguments

Judgment

The Supreme Court emphasized due process. Since no departmental inquiry was conducted despite a clear tribunal direction, the State could not brand the period as unauthorised absence for pension purposes. Regularization as extraordinary leave meant the same period could not be treated as a break in service to refuse pension. The Court ordered the authorities to finalize pension within three months, without arrears, having regard to the long pendency.

Ratio Decidendi

Where service during a disputed absence is regularized as extraordinary leave, denial of pension must be supported by an enabling rule and preceded by a proper inquiry. Absent such inquiry, the burden does not shift to the employee; the State must prove unauthorised absence.

Why It Matters

• Reaffirms natural justice in service law decisions affecting livelihood.
• Clarifies effect of regularization on pension eligibility.
• Guides departments to complete inquiries before taking adverse action.

Key Takeaways

1. No inquiry, no denial: departments must prove misconduct first.
2. Regularization narrows grounds to treat absence as a break.
3. Rules must expressly allow any curtailment of pension.
4. Burden of proof stays with the State, not the employee.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “RIP Test” – Regularized absence, Inquiry needed, Pension protected.

1. Check Regularization: Was absence converted to extraordinary leave?
2. Ask for Inquiry: Was a proper departmental inquiry held?
3. Apply Rules: Is there a specific rule allowing pension denial?

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can pension be refused after service is regularized without holding the mandated inquiry?

Rule: DCRB & Service Rules; principles of natural justice; burden on the authority to prove misconduct.

Application: No inquiry despite tribunal’s order; later regularization as extraordinary leave; therefore, the period cannot be used as a break to deny pension.

Conclusion: Pension payable; finalize within three months; no arrears in view of peculiar facts.

Glossary

Extraordinary Leave

Leave without pay granted in special situations; may not count unless rules provide.

Regularization

Later validation of an irregular period so that service remains continuous per rules.

Departmental Inquiry

Formal process to determine misconduct, ensuring notice and hearing.

Qualifying Service

Service that counts toward pension under applicable rules.

Student FAQs

Related Cases & Topics