Calcutta High Court Condemns State for Arbitrary Denial of Pension to Doctor's Widow
The Calcutta High Court has delivered a landmark ruling, strongly criticizing the state government for its arbitrary denial of pensionary benefits to the widow of a medical officer who served for over 22 years. In a judgment that underscores the sanctity of pension rights, the court declared that a pension is not a "bounty" or a "gratuitous payment" but a fundamental statutory and constitutional entitlement.
Court's Stern Rebuke on Pension as a Right
Justice Gaurang Kanth, presiding over the case, emphasized that the denial of pension without exploring lawful and equitable alternatives reflects an arbitrary exercise of power. The court set aside the state's order that had rejected the widow's plea, stating that such action is "wholly unjust, unfair, and arbitrary." The judgment, dated February 5, 2026, reaffirmed that pension constitutes a deferred component of compensation for long and continuous service, integral to the right to livelihood with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Background: Widow's Fight for Justice
The petitioner, a widow, sought pensionary and retirement benefits following the death of her husband, Dr. Biswas, who 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 passing in July 2016. Despite his dedicated service, the director of local bodies rejected her claim in 2024, arguing that his appointment was not against a "sanctioned post" and lacked prior state government approval.
Advocate Saptarshi Roy, representing the widow, argued that her husband had served for more than 20 years and received all benefits akin to a government employee. He highlighted that all similarly situated individuals had been granted pensions, necessitating post facto approval of his post. In contrast, Advocate Satyajit Mahata, for the state and municipality, contended that only two posts were lawfully created in 1994, yet four medical officers were appointed, rendering Dr. Biswas's appointment irregular.
Court's Rationale: Equity and Legitimate Expectation
The court noted that Dr. Biswas rendered over two decades of uninterrupted service, during which he was treated as a regular employee, paid from public funds, and extended all service benefits. His appointment's validity was never questioned throughout his tenure. Denying pension after extracting such prolonged service was deemed a violation of equity, good conscience, and fair play.
The doctrine of promissory estoppel was invoked, as the state, having benefited from his services, cannot resile at the retirement stage. The consistent conduct of the respondents created a legitimate expectation for retirement benefits, which cannot be defeated on technical grounds. The court stressed that state action with grave civil consequences must satisfy tests of fairness and reasonableness, which the impugned action failed.
Broader Implications and Precedents
The judgment highlighted that all other similarly appointed RMOs during the relevant period had received pensionary benefits following court rulings in 2007. Singling out Dr. Biswas for hostile discrimination based on an alleged excess appointment was unjust, especially since the municipality itself made the appointment through a conscious board decision. The burden of administrative lapses cannot be shifted onto the deceased employee.
This ruling reinforces the principle that pension rights are protected under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, ensuring non-arbitrary state action. It serves as a precedent for cases involving denial of benefits after long service, advocating for a humane and equitable approach in administrative decisions.
