The Calcutta High Court recently ruled in favor of a retired medical officer, Dr. Satinath Samanta, who was denied pension on the ground of insufficient qualifying service due to delayed regularisation. A division bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya passed this order while allowing a writ petition filed by the doctor against the rejection of his pension claim.
Dr. Samanta had joined the Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College as a medical officer on 15 October 1981. Following the enactment of the Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital (Taking Over of Management and Subsequent Acquisition) Act in 1983, the college’s management was taken over by the State in 1982 and later fully acquired in 1992.
Despite multiple court directions, the government authorities failed to regularise Dr. Samanta’s service in time. In 1998, he filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking regularisation. As the authorities did not comply with the court’s direction, Dr. Samanta had to file a second writ petition. The court, in 2005, directed the authorities to absorb him against the next vacancy and grant all consequential benefits. However, no such order was passed, forcing him to initiate contempt proceedings. Eventually, the regularisation order was issued more than five years later.
After his appointment, Dr. Samanta raised the issue that his service should be given retrospective effect. However, this was not done. Upon retirement, he was denied pension benefits on the ground that his government service was only around 8.5 years—less than the required 10 years to qualify for pension. His claim was also rejected by the West Bengal Administrative Tribunal. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition challenging the Tribunal’s order.
"The court observed that an employee cannot be penalised for delays caused by the authorities themselves in implementing a court's order."
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Chittaranjan Chakraborty, argued that under the 1983 Act, Dr. Samanta became a State Government employee from 2 January 1992, the date when the college was taken over. He said the period after this date should count towards qualifying service for pension. He also submitted that if the five-year delay caused by the authorities was included, the doctor would meet the 10-year requirement for pension eligibility.
On the other hand, the State’s counsel, Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, opposed the claim stating that the regularisation order issued in 2010 did not have retrospective effect. He further argued that Dr. Samanta had already accepted other retirement benefits, including double gratuity, and therefore could not later demand pension.
The bench ruled that the delay in implementing the court’s order was entirely due to the authorities’ inaction and could not be used to deny pension.
The Court dismissed the State's objection regarding delay and held that Dr. Samanta had consistently pursued his claim since 1988. It also emphasized that his right to be absorbed had already been confirmed in the earlier judgment passed on 22 February 2005, and the five-year delay was solely on the part of the authorities.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, the bench noted that no party can be allowed to benefit from its own wrong. Applying this principle, it held that the delay in appointment could not be used by the State to refuse pension to the petitioner.
Read Also:-Calcutta High Court Quashes Rule Penalising Consumers for Exceeding Electricity Limits
"The Court clarified that although Dr. Samanta is not entitled to wages for the delayed period under the ‘no work no pay’ principle, the said period must count as qualifying service for pension."
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal’s order, and directed the State authorities to treat the five years of delay as part of Dr. Samanta’s qualifying service. The court also ordered that all consequential benefits be paid within eight weeks.
The petitioner’s entitlement to pension cannot be denied merely due to bureaucratic delay in implementing a court order, the bench concluded.
Decided on: 17 April 2025
Case No.: W.P.S.T. 210 of 2024
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Chitta Ranjan Chakraborty, Mr. Sumit Banerjee, Ms. Puspa Rani Jaiswara
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Tapan Kr. Mukherjee, Ld. AGP, Ms. Sangeeta Roy
