Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Bamandas Pattanayak vs M/O Defence on 29 January, 2026
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
KOLKATA
No.O.A.350/1505/2017
Date of Hearing: 05.12.2025
Date of Order : 29.01.2026
Present :Hon'ble Mrs. Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. Suchitto Kumar Das, Administrative Member
Bamandas Pattanayak, Son of Late Dr. Tinkari
Pattanayak, residing at 141T/1B, South Sinthi
Road, Kolkata -700050, being the retired Foreman
of Gun and Shell Factory, Cossipore,
Kolkata-700002 and a senior citizen of 76
years old survived one cerebral stroke on 16.02.2012
for whom continual harassment should be stopped
forthwith
.........Applicant
- VERSUS-
1. Union of India, Service through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence;
2. The Director General Ordnance (Coordination
& Service, Directorate of Ordnance (C&S),
10-A S.K. Bose Road, Kolkata;
3. The General Manager, Gun and Shell Factory,
A unit of Advanced Weapons and Equipments
India Ltd., A Govt. of India Enterprise, W.B.
Kolkata -700022;
.........Respondents
For the applicant : Mr.S.K. Datta, counsel
For the respondents : Ms. D. Nag, counsel
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114,
pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber=
f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber=
248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794
Reason: I am the author of this document
BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0
2
ORDER
Urmita Datta Sen, Judicial Member The applicant has preferred this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"a) Your applicant prays that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2017 which is Annexure A/14 to this application;
b) In view of the above facts, judgments of various courts including the Supreme Court referred above and Hon'ble Kolkata High Court Judgment dated 20.01.2014 the petitioner appeals to the Hon'ble CAT judges to issue a judgment order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to quash or set aside the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed illegally without any enquiry proceedings following applicable rules and recalculate the petitioner's pension, commute pension and DCRG benefits for his service from 2nd September 1964 to 7th April, 1988 and pay all such benefits with 18% simple interest for the delay period from the due date to the date actually paid to compensate for loss from return on investment if the amount was paid when it was due and also provide all calculation sheets with all payments within 60 days of receipt of the CAT certified judgment order;
c) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to pay an additional compensation of Rs.250,000.00 as cost of an additional compensation of Rs.250, 000.00 as cost of damages for long sufferings and continued injury for 28 years within 60 days of receipt of CAT certified order which is due to negligence and irresponsibility of the respondents for not following applicable rules for imposing penalty of compulsory retirement;
d) In reliance with The Supreme Court judgment in the case of Nirmala J.
Jhala Vs. State of Gujarat & ANR [Civil Appeal No.2668 of 2005] in para
7.xvi) above and the judgment of the Supreme Court in 1984, SCC 528, Gwalior District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Mandal and others in para 7.xvii) above, the appellant should be paid exemplary cost of legal expenses by the respondents under the facts and circumstances of the case for not following any rules by the respondents. The petitioner has already spent Rs.5.9 lakhs from his retirement savings for legal proceedings for legal acts of the respondents."
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Learned Counsel for the applicant are as under:-
a) The applicant had joined service as Assistant Foreman in 1964 and thereafter worked as Foreman in Gun & Shell Factory, Cossipore, Kolkata with an excellent service record of 23 years 7 months. He applied for higher studies in U.S.A. on 06.06.1981. He was granted Earned Leave and Half Pay Leave from 08.03.1982 to Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 3 07.01.1983. Thereafter he made representation to the authorities to grant him Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) w.e.f. 08.01.1983 to 07.05.1986 for higher studies in U.S.A, which was not granted. In the meantime, on 04.04.1982 the applicant was directed to furnish an undertaking with regard to rendering 2 years of service under the respondents on completion of his higher studies. He had executed such undertaking on 23.05.1983.
b) However, on 04.04.1987, a charge sheet was issued against the applicant for misconduct and unauthorized absence from dutyon the ground that he had submitted fraudulent representation to visit U.S.A. for higher studies without taking formal admission to a university in U.S.A. He denied the charges levelled against him on 02.11.1987 and thereafter submitted application for compulsory retirement on 08.01.1988 and 14.01.1988 and to pay him all retiral benefits.Thereafter, a major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed upon him vide Order dated 08.04.1988 without any enquiry, which was stigmatic, punitive and arbitrary.
c) The authority intimated the applicant on 16.03.1989 that the period of his service from 08.01.1983 to 07.04.1988 would be treated as "Dies Non" and would not be counted for retiral benefits. Challenging the said order of the respondents, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.No.900 of 2012, which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2013 (Annexure A/3) He had assailed the said order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta by filing W.P.C.T.No.223 of 2013 and the Hon'ble Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 4 High Court vide Order dated 20.01.2014 (Annexure A/1) allowed his prayer and directed as under:-
"For the reasons aforesaid, we quash the order of the authority treating the period from 8.1.83 to 7.4.88 as 'DIES NON.' We direct the authority to recalculate in accordance with the applicable rules the petitioner's pensionary and other retiral benefits by treating him to be in service till 7th April, 1988 and to release such benefits within a period of 3 months from the date of communication of this order."
Thus, the applicant completed 23 years 7 months service w.e.f. 02.09.1964 to 08.04.1988.
d) According to the applicant, he is entitled for 5 years weightage as per rules on his qualifying service of 23 years 7 months after passing of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble High Court but such benefit was denied by way of issuing corrigendum PPO No.C/CORR/FYS/31/2014 dated 05.06.2014 along with calculation sheet which was signed by the Joint General Manager (Annexure A/4). The applicant had submitted representations to the authorities praying for relaxation of relevant rules to grant him the opportunity of commutation of pension dated 21.07.2014 followed by reminder dated 26.08.2014. He had also sent a representation against credit of wrong amount of pension to his account after issuance of Corrigendum of his PPO on 05.06.2014, but to no avail. All these representations are annexed to this O.A. as Annexure A/5.
e) The respondents had informed the applicant that CDA(FYS) had not approved his pension of Rs.1360/- in the new pay scale of 4th CPC as he never drew his pay in the 4th CPC pay scale. Again vide letter dated 23.12.1988, the applicant was communicated that pay fixation as per entitlement of 4th Pay Commission had been completed and his pension, gratuity, commuted value would be Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 5 Rs.948/-,Rs.31,262.50 and Rs.52,405.44 and he would get G.P. Fund and C.G.E.G.I.S as per Bill dated 19.11.88 and 16.11.88. However, it was mentioned in the said order that all these payments would be subject to approval of C of A (Fys.) and CDA (P), Allahabad. Thereafter with reference to an application of the applicant dated 17.01.1990 it was informed to him vide communication dated 08.02.1990 that earlier pensionary awards were calculated based on the period of absence w.e.f. 08.01.1983 to 08.04.1988 which was subsequently been regularized as "dies non" on account of unauthorized absence, therefore, the pension and other benefits granted to him by the CDA(P) Allahabad was correct. The communications dated 23.12.1988 and 08.02.1990 (alongwith the calculation sheets) were annexed to the O.A. as Annexure A/6.
f) Subsequently, the "dies non" period from 08.01.1983 to 07.04.1988 was withdrawn in respect of the applicant on 21.05.2014 as per order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta dated 20.01.2014 (as mentioned above) and in continuation of the same the period of absence of the applicant w.e.f. 08.01.1983 to 07.04.1988 was directed to be treated as "spent on duty" for the purpose of pensionary and other benefits vide Order No.2686 dated 30.05.2014 (Annexure A/7). Thereafter, Pension, Commutation of Pension and DCRG etc. werecalculated. A summary of the same is attached with the O.A. as Annexure A/8. The applicant had submitted his representation to the authorities on 09.08.1989 requesting for payment of his GPF, Commuted Value of Pension, Employees Insurance amount etc. at the earliest and for his medical examination from Civil Surgeon authorized by Consulate General of India, Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 6 Newyork, if required. He had also submitted an application for commutation of pension on 07.12.1989 (Annexure A/10). However, according to the applicant,he was not paid correct pension and other pensionary benefits as per order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta dated 20.01.2014 in W.P.C.T.No.223 of 2013.
g) As stated in preceding para (d), the applicant made representation to the G.M. on 21.07.2014 praying for commutation of his pension of Rs.304/- with age factor on 09.04.1988 based on his application submitted in the year 1989 and realize the pension which would be paid for first 15 years with commutation of Rs.304 monthly since original pension was to be restored after 15 years as per rules. He has also prayed for payment of commuted value of his pension with GP fund interest rate compounded annually from 09.07.1988 to the date of actual payment followed by reminders, wherein he had repeatedly requested the authorities to implement the order of the Hon'ble High Court and to consider his letter dated 21.07.2014, but to no avail. Therefore, he had filed a contempt application before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta i.e. C.P.A.N.No.2795 of 2014, which was decided on 21.08.2015 in W.P.C.R.C.No.209(W) of 2015 with a direction that ".......However, if the Petitioner feels that the calculations are not correct, he is free to move the appropriate Forum."
h) Pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble High Court the applicant once again filed O.A.No.350/1856/2015 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of as "withdrawn" vide order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure A/11). Thereafter, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the authorities on 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/12) Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 7 praying for payment of correct pension and other retiral benefits with interest and for issuance of revised PPO after correcting corrigendum PPO dated 05.06.2014, which was wrongly calculated by violating all applicable rules as per order of High Court at Calcutta dated 20.01.2014, but received no reply from the respondents. Therefore, the applicant sent a notice of demand for justice through his advocate on 11/12.05.2017 (Annexure A/13) and vide communication dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure A/14), his prayer was rejected on the ground that he was not entitled to get 5 years' weightage on qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits as per rules.
Challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order dated 17.06.2017, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the present O.A.
3. The respondents have filed written reply to the O.A. denying the claim of the applicant. Relying on the reply, Learned Counsel for the respondents has advanced his arguments in the following manner:-
a) In compliance with the order of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta dated 20.01.2014 in W.P.C.T.No.223 of 2013, the 'Dies Non' period from 08.01.1983 to 07.04.1988 in respect of the applicant was withdrawn and the said period was treated as 'spent on duty' by order dated 21.05.2014 and 30.05.2014. Thereafter the pensionary benefits of the applicant was recalculated and revised corrigendum PPO dated 05.06.2014 was issued. Hence, the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta was fully implemented by the department.
Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY
SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 8
b) Being dissatisfied with the calculations of his pension and pensionary benefits, the applicant had filed a contempt petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta i.e. CPAN 2795 of 2014 on the ground that he would also get the benefit of 5 years weightage in qualifying service as is applicable to the Government employees applying for voluntary retirement. The said contempt petition was decided on 21.08.2015 by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta with a direction that ".....if the Petitioner feels that the calculations are not correct, he is free to move he appropriate forum". Accordingly the applicant moved this Tribunal once again by filing O.A.No.350/1856/2015 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of as "withdrawn" vide order 21.02.2017 (Annexure A/11). Thereafter, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the authorities on 22.02.2017 (Annexure A/12) praying for payment of correct pension and other retiral benefits with interest and for issuance of revised PPO after correcting corrigendum PPO dated 05.06.2014. Said representation was considered and disposed of finally as per the Order of the Hon'ble High Court and other relevant rules vide order dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure A/14)stating that the applicant was not entitled to 5 years weightage in qualifying service. Relevant portion of the said order reads as under:-
"3. It has already been settled by the above judicial decision that you are not entitled to the benefit of 05 years extra weightage of service while calculating your qualifying service after compulsory retirement, as the above concession is not applicable in your case as per rules. Calculations have, however, been correctly made by reckoning your total qualifying service as 23 years 07 months and 07 days after including the 'Dies Non'
4. Your allegations in this regard are therefore not correct and hence it is regretted that your request cannot be acceded to."\ Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 9
c) According to the respondents, the matter has finally been decided by the authorities as per order of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, this O.A. suffers from res judicata. They have also submitted in their reply that it is an established position that as per CCS Pension Rules, 1972, qualifying service for pensionary benefits can be added for 5 years where Government servant has opted for voluntary retirement after serving 20 years within the maximum ceiling of 33 years to get full pension. In this case, the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is in force and the Hon'ble High Court had not quashed the said penalty, therefore, the applicant's claim regarding granting of 5 years' weightage as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits does not stand.
4. Heard Learned Counsel for both sides and perused the materials and documents placed on record.
5. At hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicant has taken the plea that the respondents have imposed punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" upon the applicant without holding enquiry, therefore, the said order is bad in law and violative of the clauses V to IX of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and also the Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Learned Counsel for the applicant has requested that his retirement should be treated as "voluntary retirement". As per the Learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant was not allowed to complete his service and was punished arbitrarily by granting compulsory retirement on one hand and was not given 5 years' weightage in pension calculations on the other, which led to double jeopardy.Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per Rule 9(6) of Pension Rules, 1972, in a Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 10 case where neither departmental proceedings nor judicial proceedings are instituted as contemplated by this rule as on the date of retirement of the Government servant, he immediately becomes entitled to receive full pension as per the said Rules, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get full pension with 5 years weightage as no enquiry or disciplinary proceeding was conducted against him following due procedure.
6. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments in order to strengthen his arguments in favour of the applicant:-
a) (2001)3 SCC Page 314 (State of Gujarat Vs. Umedbhai M Patel);
b) (1995) 6 SCC Page 227 (A.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Others);
c) (1996)4 SCC Page 504 (Allahabad Bank Officers' Association and Another vs. Allahabad Bank& Others);
d) AIR 1954 SC Page 369 (Shyam Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.)
e) AIR 1980 SC Page 1650 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Ratan);
f) (2001)9 SCC 687 (Vijay L Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P. and Others).
7. Learned Counsel for the respondents has pointed out that a charge sheet was issued to the applicant under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 04.04.1987 for his misrepresentation with regard to taking leave and also for his unauthorized absence from duty and the applicant had accepted the said charges on 14.01.1988. Thereafter, the applicant made a request for compulsory retirement and the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Director General, Estt. CVS accepted the applicant's explanation and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on him vide order dated 08.04.1988. All these facts were admitted by the applicant.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also referred to the relevant rules and submitted that the qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of the Government servant retiring under Rule 48(I) (a) or Rule 48-A or clause (k) Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 11 of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or clause (i) of Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations, with or without permission shall be increased by the period not exceeding five years, subject to conditions that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government servant not in any case exceed thirty three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. It is further stated that the weightage of five years under sub-rule (i) shall not be admissible in cases of those Government servants who are prematurely retired by the Government in public interest under Rule 48(1)(b) or FR 56(j). Learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that the applicant was prematurely retired by the Government in public interest, therefore, he is not entitled to get benefit of 5 years weightage of qualifying service.
9. It is noted that the issue was already considered by this Tribunal and also the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and as per Order of Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, his period of "dies non" was treated as "spent on duty" and Revised Pension Payment order was also issued. He was also allowed to commute pension and was granted other retiral benefits by the respondents but grievance of the applicant is that he was not paid correct amount of pension and other pensionary benefits. Aggrieved with wrong fixation of his pension, he had represented the department and his case was turned down vide impugned order dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure A/14) explaining the reasons therein, relevant portion of which has been quoted above.
10. It is an admitted fact that the applicant was given punishment of "compulsory retirement". It is also an admitted fact that he was issued chargesheet for misrepresentation regarding visiting U.S.A. for higher studies and also for unauthorized absence from duty and departmental enquiry was to be started against him. We find from the record that the applicant admitted that he himself Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 12 had prayed for compulsory retirement and the Director General, Establishment, CVS accepted explanation of the applicant and imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement upon him w.e.f. 08.04.1988. Therefore, after accepting the penalty of compulsory retirement on his own prayer, he cannot now say that no enquiry was conducted before imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement upon him.
11. It is needless to mention that compulsory retirement is a punishment in nature and it cannot be equated with normal retirement/voluntary retirement. Therefore, the applicant was rightly not granted weightage of 5 years on his qualifying service at the time of calculating his pensionary benefits which is given to the Government Servants who retires voluntarily. It is an established position that as per CCS Pension Rules, 1972, qualifying service for pensionary benefits can be added for 5 years where Government servant has opted for voluntary retirement after serving 20 years within the maximum ceiling of 33 years to get full pension. In this case, the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is in force and the Hon'ble High Court had not quashed the said penalty, therefore, the applicant's claim regarding granting of 5 years' weightage as qualifying service for the purpose of pensionary benefits does not stand.
12. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the opinion that there was no flaw on the part of the respondents in calculating the pensionary benefits of the applicant. They have implemented the order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta and issued correct Pension Payment Orders as per Order of the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta in W.P.C.T No.223 of 2013 after treating the 'Dies Non' period from 08.01.1983 to 07.04.1988 as "spent on duty". We do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of the respondents in this regard.
13. Accordingly the O.A. stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0 13 (Suchitto Kumar Das) (UrmitaDatta (Sen) AdministrativeMember Judicial Member Sb Digitally signed by SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY SOMA DN: C=IN, CN=SOMA BANDYOPADHYAY, O=Personal, ST=West Bengal, postalCode=700114, pseudonym=133596418541584061RzFJVlZ8C5fhN1, serialNumber= f048dc9a9c57abdc8eb507bb0fbc388d2dfdb37eb37045900c3c33b439ae01bc, telephoneNumber= 248a2038712d0767cdf2a9a674eb5cc32aa060bb09eb992ecb181b7a052a187d, title=6794 Reason: I am the author of this document BANDYOPADHYAY Location:
Date: 2026.01.30 14:04:58+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.3.0