Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal, JJ.
Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Ashit Chakraborty & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.3462 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11991/2021)
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Service Law – Pension – Respondent no.1 had submitted his option within time – He sought voluntary retirement – Certain retiral benefits were paid to him, however, no pension was paid to him for which he had exercised option – There was no conscious abandonment of right to receive pension by respondent no.1 to deprive him of his pension – Respondent no.1 had exercised his right to receive pension under 1990 Regulations in year 1991 – Thereafter, it was duty of Corporation to have given effect to same – Merely because there were some wrong deductions from his salary and he was treated as member of CPF Scheme, cannot be permitted to be raised as a ground to defeat his rightful claim – Technical objections are sought to be raised which are not tenable – For any fault on part of Corporation, employees cannot be made to suffer – Appeal dismissed. [Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990] (Paras 7, 10, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Order dated 5.3.2021 passed in F.M.A. No. 692 of 2019 by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta has been challenged before this Court wherein order dated 17.8.2018 passed by Single Bench in Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 6808 (W) of 2018 was upheld. Claim of the respondent no.1 for pension was sought to be defeated on the ground that even after exercising option, contribution was being deducted from his salary in terms of the membership in CPF scheme to which he never objected.
Findings of Court:
Argument that there are number of similarly situated employees who will also stake their claims, will not deter this Court in granting the relief to the respondent which is legitimately due to him. Rather this argument shows that the Corporation was at fault in implementing 1990 Regulations in the cases of number of employees though these were notified on 4.1.1991 and were given retrospective effect from 1.4.1984.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Bindal, J.
Leave granted.
1. The order dated 5.3.2021 passed in F.M.A. No. 692 of 2019 by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta has been challenged before this Court wherein order dated 17.8.2018 passed by the Single Bench in Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 6808 (W) of 2018 was upheld.
2. It is a case in which the respondent no.1 was appointed as a Conductor with the appellant Corporation. At that time there was no pension scheme in force, only Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was applicable. In 1991, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Corporation, with the previous sanction of the State Government, framed The Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 (for short, “the 1990 Regulations”). The aforesaid Regulations came into force with retrospective effect from 1.4.1984. The 1990 Regulations mandated that in order to get the benefit of the said scheme, existing employees of the Corporation will have to submit written option within six months from the date of publication of the 1990 Regulations expressing their willingness to switch over to the said pension scheme instead of maintaining their status as C.P.F. holder. The 1990 Regulations also provided that it shall be optional to the existing employees, however, it shall be binding upon the new entrants on and after the date of Notification of the 1990 Regulations.
3. The respondent no.1 opted for pension scheme. On 21.7.2017, he opted for voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the Corporation and he retired on 31.7.2017. On his retirement the respondent no. 1 was paid an amount of Rs.13,28,495/- towards CPF contribution, Rs. 7,44,265/- towards gratuity, Rs. 2,58,012/- towards VRS Compensation and a sum of Rs. 2,409/- towards leave salary. As no pension was paid to the respondent no.1, he made a representation on 8.5.2018. As his claim was not considered, he filed writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge vide order dated 17.8.2018. The operative part of the order reads as under:
“I direct the petitioner to refund the employer’s share of the provident fund as well as the amount of gratuity paid in excess of the pensionable amount to the Corporation with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of two weeks. Upon receipt of such payment, the respondents shall release the pension in favour of the petitioner within two weeks for the month of August 2018 and shall go on paying the monthly pension as per the usual practice with the Corporation.
So far as the arrear pension is concerned, i.e. from August, 2018 to July 2018, the respondents are directed to liquidate the same in three equal monthly instalments, the first of which shall be paid by September 15, 2018.
The arrear of pension shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum to be evenly distributed in three instalments. In case the pension amount is sent to the bank account of the petitioner, the respondent authorities shall the petitioner a copy of the break-up calculation for each monthly instalment.”
The order was challenged by the Corporation in appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the order passed by the Single Bench.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no doubt the respondent no.1 submitted his option in 1991 for the pension scheme in terms of the 1990 Regulations. However, thereafter repeated conduct of the respondent no.1 shows that he in fact was not interested in that. There were regular deductions from his salary towards provident fund. The statements were being sent to him. However, he never objected to it. He raised the issue only after his retirement. In such circumstances, he should not be allowed to avail the benefit of the pension scheme.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submitted that the requirement under the 1990 Regulations was to submit an option within the prescribed time. The respondent no.1 h
Pension – For any fault on part of Corporation, employees cannot be made to suffer.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an employee exercises the option under the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990, the Corporation is obligated to disburse pen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation cannot use financial burden as a ground for refusal to grant pensionary benefits, and that the Corporation's failure to implem....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an employee exercises an option in accordance with the applicable regulations, the employer is obligated to give effect to the option and....
The judgment establishes the principle that once an employee exercises the option under the Regulation, it becomes the duty of the Corporation to disburse the pension, and technical objections raised....
The recognized right of an employee to receive pension immediately after retirement and the obligation of the Corporation to give effect to the employee's option under the (Death-cum-Retirement) Bene....
The main legal point established is that once an employee lawfully exercises the pension option, the employer is obligated to disburse the pension benefits, and withdrawal of the option after lawful ....
The obligation of the Corporation to disburse pension upon the employee's retirement and exercise of option under the 1990 Regulations, and the rightful claim of the employee under the 1990 Regulatio....
The judgment establishes the duty of the Corporation to give effect to the employee's pension option once exercised, and affirms the recognized right of an employee to receive pension immediately aft....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
