Case Note & Summary
The appellant, a former L.D. Assistant in the Office of Block Development Officer, Jhargram, was appointed on 20.03.1986. She remained absent from duty for 107 days and again from 29.06.1987 to 12.07.2007, alleging she was restrained from signing the attendance register. A show cause notice was issued, and she filed a complaint. The matter went to the State Administrative Tribunal, which initially closed proceedings but later, on remand, directed the Collector to conduct a departmental inquiry into her allegations and decide on salary and duties. The High Court directed her reinstatement. On 19.05.2011, the respondents treated her absence as extraordinary leave and regularized her service, but denied leave salary and later pension. The Tribunal upheld the denial of pension, and the High Court dismissed her writ petition for non-prosecution. The Supreme Court, considering the 25-year pendency, decided the merits. The Court noted that despite the Tribunal's order, no departmental inquiry was conducted. It held that regularization of service by extraordinary leave cannot be treated as a break in service, and denial of pension must be based on an enabling rule. The failure to conduct an inquiry cannot shift the burden on the appellant. The Court directed the respondents to finalize her pension within three months, but without arrears.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pension - Regularization of Absence - Extraordinary Leave - The appellant's unauthorized absence was regularized as extraordinary leave under Rule 175 and Rule 176(4) of the West Bengal Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 - The court held that once service is regularized by granting extraordinary leave, the period cannot be treated as break in service, and denial of pension must be based on an enabling rule, not on failure to conduct an inquiry - Held that the appellant is entitled to pension (Paras 11-12). B) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Burden of Proof - The Tribunal had directed a departmental inquiry into the appellant's allegations that she was prevented from working, but no inquiry was conducted - The court held that the respondents' failure to conduct an inquiry cannot shift the burden on the appellant to prove she was prevented from working - Held that any observation in subsequent proceedings that she failed to demonstrate prevention does not benefit the respondents (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to pension after her unauthorized absence was regularized as extraordinary leave, and whether denial of pension without a departmental inquiry is justified.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the respondents to finalize the appellant's pension within three months, but without any arrears.
Law Points
- Regularization of service by granting extraordinary leave cannot be treated as break in service
- Denial of pensionary benefits must emanate from enabling rule
- Failure to conduct departmental inquiry cannot shift burden on employee
