Calcutta High Court Rules State Delay Cannot Reduce Pension Benefits
| ➡️ Get instant news updates on Whatsapp. Click here to join our Whatsapp Group. |
A division bench of the Calcutta High Court, consisting of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, ruled that if the State delays absorbing an employee into service, that delay cannot be used to reduce or deny the employee’s pension benefits. This means that any shortfall in the qualifying service period caused solely by the State’s delay cannot be held against the employee when claiming pension.
Background of the Case
The petitioner in this case started working at the Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital on 15th October 1981. In 1983, the State government passed the Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital (taking over of management and subsequent acquisition) Act. This law allowed the government to take control of the college and manage it directly.
After the government took over the college, the petitioner sought regularization of his employment with the college as a State Government employee. The court ordered on 22nd February 2005 that the petitioner must be absorbed into the State Government service in the next available Medical Officer post at the college. The court also stated that the petitioner should receive all related benefits from the date of absorption.
Despite this order, the authorities delayed officially appointing the petitioner as a State Government employee. The petitioner had to file a contempt petition because the authorities did not comply. Eventually, the petitioner was officially appointed, but this happened only after a delay of about five years.
Pension Issue
The petitioner retired on 31st December 2018 but was denied pension benefits. The West Bengal Administrative Tribunal (SAT) rejected his claim on 2nd September 2024. The tribunal said the petitioner did not meet the minimum qualifying service of 10 years required for a pension because he only had 8 years, 7 months, and 15 days as a State Government employee.
Arguments Presented
- Petitioner’s Argument: The petitioner said that since the government took over the college in January 1992, he should be considered a State Government employee from that date. The five-year delay in his official appointment was the State’s fault, and this delay period should count as qualifying service for pension purposes. If those five years were included, the petitioner would have more than 10 years of service and qualify for pension.
- Respondent’s Argument: The State argued that the petitioner accepted his appointment only in 2010 and delayed raising this issue. They also stated the petitioner accepted other retirement benefits, including double gratuity instead of pension, so he cannot now claim pension.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The court found that the petitioner had acted diligently and continuously pursued his right to be absorbed and get pension benefits. The court noted that the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed as early as 22nd February 2005.
The shortfall in qualifying service—1 year, 4 months, and 15 days—was due to the State’s delay in appointing the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner should not be punished or deprived of pension because of the authorities’ failure to act on time.
The court referred to the Supreme Court case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, which states that a person cannot take unfair advantage of their own mistake. In this context, the State cannot avoid pension liability by blaming the delay it caused itself.
The court clarified that while the petitioner cannot claim salary for the period between the court order (2005) and actual appointment (2010) because he did not work during that time (“no work, no pay”), this period must be counted as qualifying service for pension purposes.
Final Order
The Calcutta High Court ordered the State to count the period from 22nd February 2005 to 20th April 2010 as part of the petitioner’s qualifying service. The court also directed the authorities to pay all related pension dues to the petitioner within eight weeks of receiving the court’s order.
As a result, the previous order rejecting the pension claim was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
