September 7, 2026 Sl. No.A 2 Court No.1 s.biswas WPCT 33 of 2025 Milind K. Deouskar and others vs. Dr. Anjan Dasgupta Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta Mr. Guddu Singh Mr. Gourab Maiti ... for the petitioners Mr. Phatick Chandra Das Mr. Anurag Chatterjee Mr. Ranajit Dutta Mr. Samartha Ghosh ... for the respondent The present writ petition has been preferred by the alleged contemnors/functionaries of the Union of India/petitioners herein challenging orders dated 23.12.2024 and 06.01.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in the contempt petition being C.P. 108 of 2015 arising out of an order dated 16.12.2014 passed in the original application (in short, OA) being OA 55 of 2011. Records would reveal that the OA was disposed of by an order dated 16.12.2014 directing inter alia that if the resignation of the original applicant/respondent herein, namely, Anjan Dasgupta (in short, Anjan) is accepted, the disciplinary authority shall complete the proceedings after service of the charge-sheet and conclude the same preferably by six months. It was further directed that if such resignation is not accepted, he should be ‘deemed to be in service till date’. Challenging the said order, the petitioners preferred a writ petition being WP.CT 141 of 2015 but the same was dismissed by an order dated 12.07.2023. The petitioners did not assail the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the midst thereto, Anjan retired on 31.10.2021 and a Pension Payment Order (in short, PPO) was issued on 11.11.2024 observing inter alia that the respondent’s total service is 35 years 16 days, however, qualifying service is 13 years. On the basis said PPO, the pensionary benefits have been disbursed and the period of 22 years 1 month 2 days was deducted and not considered for grant of pensionary benefits declaring the said period to be a period of ‘non-qualifying service’. Aggrieved thereby, the Anjan filed the contempt petition. In the contempt petition, the Deputy CPO of Eastern Railway appeared on 03.10.2024 and submitted, upon instruction, of his higher authority that ‘they are ready to make payment of pension and pensionary benefit of the applicant since 1986 till date of retirement of the applicant by complying with the order of this Tribunal dated 16.12.2014 which has been further affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 passed in WPCT No.141/2015’. Even thereafter, the contempt proceeding was contested and ultimately the orders passed in the same on 23.12.2024 and 06.01.2025 have been impugned in the present writ petition. 2 Mr. Dasgupta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners argues that Anjan was on unauthorized absence from 29.09.1999 and did not approach the petitioners to join his service though there was no order of suspension preventing him from joining his duties. Anjan also did not make out any case that was not allowed to join his duties. In view of such admitted absence in service and the period during which he did not join being 22 years 1 month and 2 days was rightly treated as a period of ‘non qualifying service’ being leave without pay. The reason as to why the said period was deducted from his qualifying service towards pension was disclosed in the order dated 25.11.2024 passed with the leave of the learned Tribunal in the contempt application. In view thereof, a fresh cause of action occasioned to seek redressal before the appropriate forum. In support of such contention reliance has been placed upon the judgments delivered in the cases of J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and Others, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 291 and Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Others vs. M. George Ravishekaran and Others, reported in (2014) 3 SCC 373. He contends that the period during which Anjan admittedly did not join cannot be counted as qualifying service towards pension in view of the Department of Pension and Pensioners’ Welfare office memo dated 3 22.06.2020 circulated through Railway Board’s letter dated 02.07.2020 and docketed vide PCPO/ER’s Serial Circular no. 65/2020. The said circular dated 22.06.2010 categorically provides that a person who remained absent without any authority cannot reap the benefits of such period of absence. Rule 1302 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and FR 17(1) provides inter alia that an officer who is absent from duty without any authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of his absence. In view thereof, Anjan’s period of absence cannot be counted for pension. In support of such contention reliance has also been placed upon the judgments unreported delivered in the cases of Union of India, rep. by its General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another vs S.P. Bhattacharya and another and Delhi Transport Corporation vs Balwan Singh & Ors. Mr. Das, learned advocate appearing for Anjan denies and disputes the contention of the petitioners and submits that the judgment dated 16.12.2014 delivered by the learned Tribunal in OA no. 55 of 2011 attained finality after the same was confirmed upon dismissal of the writ petition being WPCT 141 of 2025 preferred by the petitioners on 12.07.2023. In view thereof, the observation in the learned Tribunal’s order dated 16.12.2014 that ‘in case his resignation was not 4 accepted he should be deemed to be in service till date’ attained finality. Admittedly Anjan’s resignation was not accepted. No speaking order was passed indicating whether the resignation was ever accepted. In the said conspectus, the period during which Anjan did not join cannot be deducted from his qualifying service towards pension. The learned Tribunal was cautious that as Anjan did not serve during the said period he shall not be entitled to the actual benefits. Mr. Das further argues that a judicial mandate cannot be supplanted by any government circular. In the instant case the circular dated 22.06.2006 upon which reliance has been placed by the petitioners has no manner of application. The said circular pertains to a period during which an employee is absent from duty without any authority. The same has no manner of application in the present case. In support of the arguments, reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union of India, reported in AIR 1983 SC 130. We have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record. The issues which arise for consideration are as follows: (i) Whether the service period of 22 years, 1 month, and 2 days can be subtracted from the total 5 service period of the original applicant for calculation of the pensionary benefits? (ii) Whether the orders passed in the contempt application have any effect of addition or deletion of any direction contained in the order passed in the OA and create a fresh cause of action? Indisputably, the order dated 16.12.2024 passed in the OA 55 of 2011 attained finality upon dismissal of the writ petition preferred by the petitioners on 12.07.2023. It is true that in the said writ petition an order was passed on 20.12.2016 observing that ‘the contempt application which is pending before the Tribunal will not be proceeded with till this petition heard finally’. However, the order impugned dated 16.12.2024 was never stayed. In terms of the order dated 16.12.2024 no reasoned order was also passed towards acceptance of resignation tendered by Anjan on 31.07.2002. Having not accepted the resignation, the only option was to commence the disciplinary proceeding, however, the petitioners consciously did not take such steps. In view thereof, after dismissal of the writ petition the petitioners by passing an order could not have taken a stand that the period of 22 years 1 month 2 days during which Anjan did not serve needs to be treated as ‘non-qualifying service’. It is not a case that by proceeding in contempt the learned Tribunal had travelled beyond the four corners of the order or 6 had entered into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the order of which violation was alleged. No order has been passed having any effect of addition or deletion of any direction contained in the order passed in the OA. The order dated 25.11.2024 has not created any fresh cause of action. In view thereof, the judgment delivered in the cases of J.S. Parihar (supra) and Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Others (supra) have no manner of application. The circular dated 22.06.2006, Rule 1302 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and FR 17(1) would be relevant in cases where the unauthorized period of absence had been treated as leave without pay disentitling the incumbent from pay and allowances pertaining to the said period of absence. However, in the instant case the learned Tribunal by the order dated 16.12.2014 made a categorical observation that ‘in case his resignation was not accepted he should be deemed to be in service till date’, and that ‘however, for the period he has not served the applicant shall not be entitled to any salary’. A composite reading of the said two observations entitles Anjan to pension upon counting the period from 29.09.1999 till the date of his retirement, i.e., 31.10.2021 as qualifying service, moreso when such observations have been confirmed in the writ petition preferred the petitioners. The 7 petitioners consciously did not issue any order asking Anjan to join immediately after the order dated 16.12.2024 and did not proceed with the disciplinary proceeding any further. It was also submitted on behalf of the petitioners before the Learned Tribunal, upon instructions, that they ‘are ready to make payment of pension and pensionary benefit of the applicant since 1986 till date of retirement of the applicant by complying with the order of this Tribunal dated 16.12.2014’. In the said conspectus, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. As the learned Tribunal’s observations were not interfered with by the Hon’ble High Court, the provisions of the circular dated 22.06.2006, Rule 1302 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and FR 17(1) have no manner of application. The unreported judgments delivered in the cases of Delhi Transport Corporation (supra) and General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (supra) are distinguishable on facts. For the reasons discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Atarup Banerjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 8