The Supreme Court has ruled that a retired government employee cannot be denied pension benefits if their unauthorized absence was later regularized as extraordinary leave. This decision reinforces the protection of pension rights for employees facing service gaps due to unavoidable circumstances.
Court’s Key Observation
The Supreme Court clarified that if an employee’s prolonged absence is regularized by treating it as extraordinary leave, it cannot be considered a ‘break in service’ to deny pensionary benefits. The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized that once an employee’s absence has been regularized, they should be entitled to pension benefits like any other retiree.
Case Background
The case involved a retired government employee (Appellant) who was prevented from signing the attendance register and performing her duties, leading to her absence from work. Despite multiple legal proceedings, no departmental inquiry was conducted against her. Eventually, her service was regularized by treating her absence as extraordinary leave.
However, when the appellant applied for pension and retirement benefits, the authorities denied her request, claiming that her absence did not count as service for pension purposes. The case was first heard by the State Administrative Tribunal and later by the High Court, both of which ruled against granting her pension benefits. She then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the earlier decisions, stating that pension benefits cannot be denied on the grounds of a break in service if the absence was regularized. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, who authored the judgment, highlighted that the burden of proving unauthorized absence lay with the respondents (government authorities).
The court criticized the authorities for not conducting a departmental inquiry, stating that they could not shift the burden of proof onto the employee. It further noted that denying pension benefits must be based on a legal provision allowing such denial, which was not applicable in this case.
“The respondents’ failure to conduct an inquiry as per the Tribunal’s order cannot shift the burden on the appellant to prove that she was prevented from working. Denial of pensionary benefits to an employee must be supported by specific rules. When the service has been regularized by treating the same as extraordinary leave, it cannot be considered unauthorized leave for denying pension benefits,” the judgment stated.
Final Order
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed the authorities to finalize and release the appellant’s pension within three months. This ruling sets an important precedent for government employees facing similar pension disputes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
