SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Cal) 580

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
MADHURESH PRASAD, PRASENJIT BISWAS, JJ.
Smt. Alochana Pan And Ors. – Petitioners 
Versus
The State of West Bengal And Ors. – Respondents 
WPST 173 of 2024
Decided On : 06-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dr. Debabrata Karan, Ms. Sabita Khuntia (Bhuniya), Mr. Krishnapada Santra, Ms. Arpita Saha, Mr. Souvik Naiya
For The Respondent: Mr. Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, ld. AGP., Ms. Sangeeta Roy

Temporary service may be counted towards qualifying service for pension eligibility, emphasizing continuous service acknowledgment under relevant pension rules.

Headnote:(A) Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Rules of West Bengal - Entitlement to Pension - The petitioner challenged denial of pensionary benefits based on qualifying service, contesting the exclusion of temporary service prior to regularization; Court examined whether such service should count for qualifying tenure. (Paras 1-21)

(B) Qualifying Service - Service as seasonal employee considered for pension eligibility are significant to determine rights under pension rules; the Court emphasized continuous service acknowledgment is paramount irrespective of temporary status. (Paras 16-20)

Facts of the case:
The case involves a petitioner whose continuous service since 1975 as a DDT Spray Worker was contested for counting towards pension eligibility following regularization in 2009. The tribunal's earlier decision acknowledged service contributions but was challenged by the state on disqualification grounds regarding 'seasonal' classification.

Findings of Court:
Court found insufficient grounds for state to deny service recognition pre-regularization and emphasized statutory acknowledgment of contributions made by the petitioner over decades.

Issues: Whether prior temporary service should be counted as qualifying tenure for pension rights was central to the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi: Court concluded that continuous service prior to regularization should be counted under pension entitlements as stipulated by the relevant legislative rules, asserting that service rendered is crucial in determining rights.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, with directions to calculate and pay the allotment of pension due to the petitioner.

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges denial of pension benefits. (Para 1 , 2)
2. long litigation led to regularization of service. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. count eligibility for pension based on service. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. criteria for regularization articulated by tribunal. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. government's own memos support petitioners' claims. (Para 12 , 13)
6. arguments against service qualifications found untenable. (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
7. precedent case affirmed importance of counting temporary time. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
8. period from 1998 to be considered for pension eligibility. (Para 20)
9. directives issued for pension payment to petitioner. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

1. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 was the applicant before the West Bengal State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal in short) in O.A No.375 of 2017 and thereafter the writ petitioner before this Court. He has since been substituted by the present writ petitioners. We will refer to the original applicant/ writ petitioner as the petitioner, hereafter. The petitioner filed the Original Application with a prayer for setting aside an order dated 22.04.2016, issued by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department under the signature of theSenior Accounts Officer. By the said order the Senior Accounts Officer conveyed the decision that the petitioner had qualifying service (1 year 5 months and 15 days) from 16.01.2009 to 30.06.2010. The petitioner’s claim for pension was thus found to be inadmissible since he was not having requisite qualifying service (10 years) for grant of any pensionary benefits. By the self-same order dated 22.04.2016, the Senior Accounts Officer has recorded the fact of release of the petitioner’s Service gratuity vide Payment Order dated Pen-XII/133272. The petitioner put to challenge this order dated 22.04.2016, in the Original Application and prayed for grant of retiral benefits including pension in acknowledgement of the period of temporary services rendered by the petitioners since 1975, treating him to be in substantive permanent service with effect from 01.01. 2002, in terms of the order dated 26.09.2001 passed on petitioner’s earlier O.A. No.876 of 1998.

2. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner’s original application by an order dated 04.04.2024, which the petitioners challenged in the present writ petition.

3. The applicant before the Tribunal, since deceased, joined as DDT spray worker in the year 1975, he was working in the Office of the Deputy Chief Medical Officer of Health-II, Midnapur (DCMO for short). The petitioner along with others filed O.A No.876 of 1998 seeking a relief of appointment by way of regularization of their services. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed an order on 26.09.2001, directing the authorities to give appointment to the petitioner strictly in accordance with seniority of claim as per serial.

4. The writ petition bearing no. WPST 1284 of 2001 filed by the Government of West Bengal challenging the Tribunal’s order, was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench on 13.07.2005. The State Government preferred an SLP before the Apex Court. The Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 2481 of 2007 filed by the State Government was dismissed on 19.09.2008.

5. The fruits of the decade long litigation were made available to the petitioner by appointing him as a regular employee on 16.01.2009. The petitioner, upon attaining the age of superannuation retired on 30.06.2010. He thereafter, approached the authority for release of pensionary benefits, which was rejected on 22.04.2016.

6. The issue, arising for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to counting of services beyond the period of 1 year, 5 months and 15 days, for the purposes of qualifying service for grant of pensionary benefits.

7. We are, therefore, required to consider whether discharge of duty for decades as a temporary/seasonal worker as DDT Spray Worker, i.e. from 1975 till 2009, prior to his regul

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top