Authority: High Court at Calcutta (Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction – Appellate Side)

Order Date: 10 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Shrimati Shubra Das and another, represented by Mr. Atreya Chakraborty.
  • Respondents: Union of India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and others, represented by a team of counsel.
  • Writ Petition: WPCT No. 258 of 2025 challenges (i) an office order dated 23 April 2003 that deemed the predecessor, Dr. Dhurjati Prasad Das, to have resigned from ICAR service effective 29 December 1991, and (ii) a reasoned order dated 18 January 2018 rejecting his claim for pension and pensionary benefits.
  • Background: Dr. Dhurjati Prasad Das joined ICAR as a scientist on 28 September 1976. He took study leave (28 Sep 1981‑27 Sep 1982, extended to 27 Sep 1983), applied for further extension (refused), took extraordinary leave (1 Jan‑31 Dec 1985, refused), was directed to re‑join on 27 February 1985, was penalised for unauthorized absence (1 Jan‑22 Jun 1986), and was absent without leave from 21 November 1987‑15 November 1990. ICAR treated this period as dies‑non and transferred him to Sambalpur.
  • Procedural History:
  • OA 1197 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) sought relief; the competent authority issued the 23 April 2003 office order deeming resignation. The CAT dismissed OA 1197 on 30 November 2004 as meritless.
  • The predecessor filed WPCT 189 of 2006, dismissed on 15 May 2007; a review on 8 March 2013 expunged the “abandoned service” observation.
  • OA 547 of 2016 before CAT directed consideration for pension; CAT ordered pension consideration on 13 November 2017, but ICAR rejected the claim on 18 January 2018.
  • OA 738 of 2023 challenged the 2003 and 2018 orders; CAT dismissed it on 4 September 2025 as devoid of merit. The present writ petition was filed thereafter.
  • Petitioners’ Arguments: The 2003 office order lacked statutory basis (Rule 26 CCS Pension Rules 1972 cited, but deemed‑resignation provision introduced only in 2012 under Rule 12 CCS Leave Rules 1972). They contended only the President of ICAR could issue such an order and that disciplinary proceedings under Rule 25(2) CCS Leave Rules 1972 were appropriate. They cited Supreme Court judgments (D.K. Yadav 1993, Krushna Kant B. Parmar 2012) for the right to be heard and entitlement to pension after ten years of service.
  • Respondents’ Arguments: The orders were made under applicable rules; continuous leave exceeding five years is prohibited (Rule 12(2) CCS Leave Rules 1972). They argued the matter was barred by res judicata, citing Supreme Court decisions (Puja Fero Alloys 2025, Ashok Kumar Dabas 2025). They maintained that the competent authority, not the President alone, could issue the office order.
  • Court’s Observations: The Court examined the applicability of Rule 12(2) CCS Leave Rules 1972 and noted that the “deemed resignation” concept was later inserted in 2004, but the prohibition on continuous leave exceeding five years existed earlier. The Court found that the predecessor had been given multiple opportunities to explain his absence, and that the Tribunal correctly held Rule 12(2) was attracted and that no illegality existed in the orders. The Court also observed that ICAR issued a confirming letter on 3 July 2003, and that the issue of dies‑non had already been decided and could not be reopened. The doctrine of res judicata was held inapplicable because the present cause of action (pension claim) differed from earlier litigation.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition WPCT 258 of 2025 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
  • The judgment and order dated 4 September 2025 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, in OA 738 of 2023 is upheld.
  • The earlier office order of 23 April 2003 deeming resignation and the reasoned order of 18 January 2018 rejecting pension remain effective.

Topics: Pension Law, Government Service Discipline, Judicial Review