‘Pension not bounty’: Calcutta High Court slams state for denying benefits to doctor’s widow after 22 years of service

The order added that the doctrine of promissory estoppel squarely applies, as the state and its instrumentalities, having held out the petitioner as a regular employee and having derived benefit from his services, cannot resile at the stage of retirement.

Case of widow’s pension right

• The petitioner is a widow whose husband was appointed as a Residential Medical Officer (RMO) at the Dum Dum Municipal Specialised Hospital in March 1994.
• He served continuously and without blemish until his death in July 2016.
• Following his passing, the petitioner sought pensionary benefits, which were rejected by the director of local bodies in 2024, on the grounds that Dr. Biswas’s appointment was not against a “sanctioned post” and lacked prior state government approval.
• Advocate Saptarshi Roy, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner’s husband was in service for more than 20 years, and the state has extended all the benefits available to a govt. employee.
• He argued that all his counterparts and similarly situated people are getting the pension and other retirement benefits, and hence, post facto approval of his post is required.
• Advocate Satyajit Mahata, appearing for the state and municipality, contended that in 1994, only two posts were lawfully created, yet four medical officers were appointed, rendering his appointment irregular.

Denying pension unjust, unfair, and arbitrary

• The court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the petitioner’s deceased husband has rendered more than two decades of uninterrupted service under the municipality.
• Throughout his service career, he was treated as a regular employee, paid a salary from public funds, and extended all service benefits in accordance with the applicable government norms.
• At no point during his service tenure was the legality or validity of his appointment questioned.
• To deny pensionary benefits to the petitioner after extracting more than twenty years of service would be wholly unjust, unfair, and arbitrary, offending the principles of equity, good conscience,e and fair play.
• The consistent conduct of the respondents in continuing the petitioner in service created a legitimate expectation that he would be extended the same retirement benefits as his similarly situated counterparts, which expectation cannot now be defeated on a technical plea.
• Denial of pension in such circumstances is manifestly arbitrary, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and offends Article 21, since pension is an integral facet of the right to livelihood with dignity.
• State action producing such grave civil consequences must satisfy the tests of fairness, reasonableness, and non-arbitrariness, which the impugned action clearly fails.
• All other similarly situated RMO appointed during the relevant period have been granted pensionary benefits pursuant to the judgments of this court in 2007.
• The petitioner’s deceased husband cannot be singled out for hostile discrimination merely on account of an alleged excess appointment in a particular year.
• Especially when such an appointment was made by the municipality itself pursuant to a conscious decision of its board, and the petitioner’s deceased husband was continuously accommodated in service for more than two decades.
• Having derived benefit from his services, the respondents cannot now deny him a pension on a hyper-technical plea.
• The burden of any administrative lapse cannot be shifted onto the deceased employee.
• Denial of pension without exploring lawful and equitable alternative reflects an arbitrary exercise of power.