14.09.2026 Item No. 12. Court No.8. AB WPCT 144 of 2026 Union of India & Others Vs Debjani Das Mr. Moti Sagar Tewary Mr. Amal Kr. Dutta …..for the Petitioners. Mr. Hemanta Kr. Das, Ms. Tanusree Roy …..for the Respondent. Dictated by Arijit Banerjee, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated June 26, 2025, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, in O.A. 350/634/2024, being an original application filed by the respondent herein. The respondent is the wife of a deceased employee of National Library, Kolkata. 2. It appears that the respondent’s husband i.e. Sri Tapan Kumar Das, since deceased, was an employee of National Library, Kolkata. Apparently, Tapan absented himself from service from May 29, 1996 till July 20, 2009. When he resurfaced after a gap of about 13 years, he was allowed to join service but without any allowance for the period during which he was absent. 3. It further appears that due to the unauthorized absence from work, the Disciplinary Authority imposed on Tapan the penalty of withholding promotion for two years, vide order dated May 6, 2 2010. By the said order, the Disciplinary Authority also directed that the period of Tapan’s absence from May 29, 1996 to July 20, 2009 will be treated as “dies non”. 4. Subsequently, an Office Order dated July 26, 2012, was issued by the Director General of National Library which was to the following effect: “In terms of the Government of India’s Decision No.1 under Rule 27 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, the Director General, National Library, Kolkata is pleased to treat the dies non period of service from 6.2.1997 to 25.03.2009 in respect of Shri Rama Kanta Das and period from 29.5.1996 to 20.7.2009 in respect of Shri Tapan Kr. Das both MTS, National Library, Kolkata as leave without allowance i.e. extraordinary leave”. 5. Tapan passed away in the year May 25, 2019, after he retired from service in March that year. While calculating his pension, the concerned Authorities did not consider Tapan to be in service between May 29, 1996 and July 20, 2009. 6. Challenging the aforesaid, Tapan’s wife, being the present respondent, approached the Tribunal by filing O. A. 350/634/2024. 7. The learned Tribunal allowed the application. The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered on February 25, 2025, in a Civil Appeal of 2025 arising out of SLP (C) No.8850-8852 of 2024 [Jaya Bhattacharya Vs State of West Bengal & Others]. The Tribunal held that once the unauthorized leave of an 3 employee is regularized by granting extraordinary leave, it cannot be said that there was break in the service of that employee. The operative portion of the Tribunal’s order reads as follows: “10. Since the period from 29/5/1996 to 20/7/2009 during which late Tapan Kumar Das was absent from duty, was subsequently regularized by grant of extraordinary leave, the said period shall count as qualifying service for calculating his family pension. It appears from the records, that the said period has not been counted as qualifying service of Late Tapan Kumar Das for the purpose of calculating his pension. However, since aforesaid period of absence from duty of Tapan Kumar Das has been subsequently regularized by grant of extraordinary leave, the same shall count as qualifying service rendered by him for the purpose of calculating his pension and pensionary benefits. 11. The competent respondent authority is directed to recalculate the pension of late Tapan Kumar Das and the family pension payable to his widow Smt. Debjani Das by counting the period of his service for the period w.e.f, 29/5/1996 to 20/7/2009 as qualifying service within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and to pay the revised amount to the applicant within the aforesaid period.” 8. Being aggrieved, the Union of India and its Officers of the concerned department have challenged the Tribunal’s order by way of the present writ petition. 9. Appearing for the writ petitioners, learned Advocate strenuously argued that the period of 13 years and odd during which Tapan was absent from service, cannot be considered for the purpose of computing his pensionary benefits. Taking a favourable view of the representation made by Tapan, he was 4 allowed to join when he reported to National Library after about 13 years 2 months, but without any allowance for the said period during which he was absent. He did not render any service during that period. Therefore, that period cannot be taken into account for the purpose of computing his pensionary entitlements. 10. Learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that as rightly held by the Tribunal, once Tapan’s absence was regularized by granting him extraordinary leave in terms of Rule 27(2) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, there can be no justification for excluding the period of his absence for the purpose of calculating the retiral benefits of Tapan. 11. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. 12. We see no apparent infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, which is sought to be assailed before us. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jaya Bhattacharya (supra), clearly laid down that once the unauthorized absence of an employee is regularized by the appointing authority, it cannot be said that there is a break in that employee’s service. 13. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority had initially directed that the period of absence of Tapan be treated as “dies non”. Subsequently, the 5 appointing authority being the Director General of National Library, on the basis of the Central Government’s decision under Rule 27(2) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2021, directed that the period of “dies non” be treated as extraordinary leave. This was by the aforesaid Office Order dated July 26, 2012. Hence, the period of absence was regularized. After that, there can be no justification not to consider the period of 13 years and odd during which Tapan was absent, for the purpose of computing his pensionary benefits. 14. We see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Tribunal, which stands affirmed. 15. At this juncture, learned advocate for the writ petitioners prays for extension of time to carry out learned Tribunal’s direction. On his request, time for the writ petitioners herein to implement the learned Tribunal’s order and in particular, the direction in paragraph 11 of the order, is extended by eight weeks from date. 16. We, however, note that the order of the learned Tribunal was pronounced on June 26, 2025. The present writ petition was filed more than a year thereafter, on July 1, 2026. We, therefore, direct the writ petitioners to pay interest to the respondent on the amount due to her in terms of the learned Tribunal’s order, at the rate of 8% p.a. 6 for the period from June 26, 2025 till the date of payment. 17. Learned Advocate for the respondent says that he will make a prayer before the learned Tribunal for adjourning the contempt application pending before it, for a period of ten weeks. 18. WPCT 144 of 2026 stands dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs. 20. All parties shall act in terms of server copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.) (Arijit Banerjee, J.)