Pension rules: Orissa HC says government employees can’t lose pension over leave alone
Government employees cannot be denied pension and other retirement benefits solely because they remained absent from work without sanctioned leave, the Orissa High Court has ruled. The court held that unauthorised absence, by itself, does not amount to grave misconduct warranting compulsory retirement unless the employer establishes that the absence was wilful.
The judgment came in the case of a railway employee whose retirement benefits were curtailed after disciplinary proceedings were initiated over his prolonged absence from duty. Allowing his petition, the High Court directed the Railways to recalculate and release his pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other retiral benefits, besides paying 50% back wages for the period between his compulsory retirement and normal superannuation.
Leave without approval is not automatically misconduct
The dispute arose after railway employee Jaya Chandra Mishra proceeded on leave to care for his ailing mother. Court records show that he had initially applied for leave and later sought an extension when her condition worsened. He also informed the authorities through a telegram. However, the leave was never sanctioned, and the Railways treated the period as unauthorised absence.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, eventually leading to compulsory retirement. The penalty also affected his retirement benefits. After the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to interfere, Mishra challenged the decision before the Orissa High Court.
A bench comprising Justices Krishna S. Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash observed that merely because an employee’s leave application was not approved, it cannot automatically be presumed that the employee committed grave misconduct.
The court said an employer is free to initiate disciplinary proceedings for unauthorised absence, but a major penalty cannot be imposed without establishing that the absence was deliberate or wilful. In arriving at its decision, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union of India, which held that unauthorised absence does not constitute misconduct unless there is a finding that it was wilful.
Why the ruling matters
The High Court also found the punishment imposed on the employee to be disproportionate. It noted that Mishra had put in nearly 28 years of service and that there was no finding that he had intentionally defied official orders. Considering the circumstances, including his mother’s illness, the bench held that compulsory retirement was an excessive punishment.
The court directed the Railways to treat the employee as having continued in service until his normal date of retirement for the limited purpose of calculating pension and other retiral dues. It also ordered payment of 50% back wages, observing that the employee had partly contributed to the delay in resolving the dispute through prolonged litigation.
The ruling does not mean employees can remain absent from work without consequences. Instead, it clarifies that unauthorised leave alone cannot justify compulsory retirement or denial of pensionary benefits. Before imposing such a severe penalty, the employer must establish that the absence was wilful and ensure that the punishment is proportionate to the misconduct proved.
