Employee Entitled To Pension If Delay In Appointment Caused By Authorities: Calcutta High Court   

If a delay in an employee's appointment by the authorities results in loss of pension due to not meeting the requirement of minimum qualifying years of service, especially when the appointment is court-mandated absorption in nature, can the pension be denied? According to the recent ruling of the Calcutta High Court, it cannot be denied if it can be proven that the employer was responsible for the delay.

In a recent judgement, a bench of the court, consisting of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya, ruled that the delayed period should be counted for calculating the qualifying years of service for pension benefits.   

A Brief Background Of The Case:

• The petitioner (Dr Satinath Samanta) joined Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College in 1981 as a medical officer

• In 1983, the state government, under an enactment of the Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital Act, took over the college. The state took over the management in 1982 and the full college in 1992

• In 1988, the petitioner filed a writ petition with the Calcutta High Court seeking his regularisation in college. The passed order was in his favour. However, the authorities still have not issued his regularisation order

• The petitioner then approached the court and filed a writ petition again. The court observed other doctors' absorption in the college

• In 2005, it ordered the college to adsorb Dr Samanta whenever the next vacancy was available and provide him with the consequential benefits

• The authorities had not issued the regularisation order yet again. It was then the petitioner filed for contempt proceedings

• The court directed the college again, and this time in 2010, the authorities issued the order. However, five years have passed during all these proceedings

The court directed the college again, and this time in 2010, the authorities issued the order. However, five years have passed during all these proceedings.

The Arguments:

The petitioner's counsel argued that Dr Samanta became a state government employee when the college was fully taken over in 1992. With this logic, the period after take-over completion should be counted to calculate his pension. Additionally, the five-year delay by the government in regularising his job when added to his work year, he becomes eligible for a pension for working more than the minimum required years.

The state government counsel argued that the petitioner's appointment letter was issued in 2010, which did not mention it to be effective retrospectively. He contended that the petitioner should have challenged the order right then, but he did not do so. Allegedly, he (petitioner) intentionally delayed raising the pension issue while taking the other retirement benefits, including 'double gratuity'. The counsel pressed that the pension claim should not be maintained now as it was an intentional delay on the part of the petitioner.

The Court Judgement:

The court observed that the petitioner has been pursuing his claim for regularisation since 1988. While the regularisation order was finally passed in 2005, the government delayed its implementation, leading to contempt proceedings.

While for pension benefits the minimum service should be at least 10 years, in case of the petitioner it is only 1.5 years short. The court observed that the short period is less than the five years delay made by the authorities in implementing the absorption order.

The court noted that the delay was on the part of authorities, and they should not shift the blame on the petitioner for not raising questions.

Referring to the Supreme Court judgement in a similar case, it said, "It is a settled principle of law that one cannot be permitted to take undue and unfair advantage of one's own wrong".

The court directed the authorities to include the period from February 22, 2005 (when the court passed the order for absorption) to April 20, 2010 (when the government passed the regularisation order) for pension calculation. However, it held that wages cannot be paid for the same period due to the 'no work, no pay' principle.

It directed the authorities to pay the dues to the petitioner within eight weeks.