SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(Cal) 453

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.
Haradhan Dutta & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of West Bengal & Others - Respondents
WP No. 33393 (W) of 2014
Decided On : 29-06-2017

Advocate Appeared:
Abhratosh Manumder, Ld. Govt. Pleader, Amal Kumar Sen, Sr. Govt. Advocate, L.K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, Malay Kumar Basu, Samiran Mondal, Shiladitya Bose, Ayan Banerjee, Debosree Dhamali, Aniruddha Sen, Advocates.

Headnote:

SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES' PENSION REGULATIONS, 2002 - PENSIONARY BENEFITS - IMPLEMENTATION - EMPLOYEES' OPTION - DELAY - DISCRIMINATION - ARTICLE 14 - STATE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES - AUTONOMOUS BODY - ARTICLE 12 - PARITY - CPF SCHEME - LUMP SUM AMOUNT - RETIREMENT BENEFITS - WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, retired employees of South Bengal State Transport Corporation (SBSTC), prayed for implementation of pensionary benefits as per SBSTC Employees' Pension Regulations, 2002, payment of arrear dues, and issuance of pension payment orders. The regulations were framed for the benefit of SBSTC employees, but a decision was taken in 2003 not to implement them due to low opt-in rates. Petitioners contended that they were similarly placed as petitioners in an earlier writ petition where the court had directed implementation of the regulations for optees. SBSTC argued that petitioners did not exercise their option within the stipulated time, causing inordinate delay, and that they were fence-sitters watching the fate of the earlier writ petition. The State contended that the earlier judgment was restricted to petitioners in that case and could not be extended to present petitioners who had waived their right to pension by accepting CPF benefits.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioners were not similarly placed as the petitioners in the earlier writ petition since they had not exercised their option for the pension scheme within the stipulated time. The court also found that the petitioners had accepted their full retiral benefits under the CPF Scheme and had not approached the court within a reasonable time to seek the pension scheme. The court further held that the petitioners were not State Government employees and that SBSTC was an autonomous body with independent governance, including the power to employ officers. The court also rejected the petitioners' contention that not extending the pension scheme to SBSTC employees amounted to discrimination, as different State Transport Corporations were separate entities with the freedom to make their own policy decisions.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were similarly placed as the petitioners in the earlier writ petition and entitled to the same benefits. 2. Whether the petitioners had waived their right to pension by accepting CPF benefits and causing inordinate delay in approaching the court. 3. Whether the petitioners were State Government employees and entitled to similar pensionary benefits as other Government employees. 4. Whether not extending the pension scheme to SBSTC employees amounted to discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The petitioners were not similarly placed as the petitioners in the earlier writ petition since they had not exercised their option for the pension scheme within the stipulated time. 2. The petitioners had accepted their full retiral benefits under the CPF Scheme and had not approached the court within a reasonable time to seek the pension scheme. 3. The petitioners were not State Government employees and that SBSTC was an autonomous body with independent governance, including the power to employ officers. 4. Not extending the pension scheme to SBSTC employees did not amount to discrimination, as different State Transport Corporations were separate entities with the freedom to make their own policy decisions.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners are all retired employees of South Bengal State Transport Corporation (in short ‘SBSTC’). In this writ application the petitioners pray for the following reliefs:

“(a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and their men, agents and subordinates to implement the pensionary benefits as specified in the SBSTC Employees Pension Regulation, 2002 in favour of the petitioner immediately;

(b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and their men, agent and subordinates to pay all arrear dues on pension head to the petitioners after adjustment of the returnable amount if any from the payable amount as arrear after exercising option form each of them;

(c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and their men, agent and subordinates to pay the pension including arrear pension in favour of the petitioners in terms of the spirit of the judgment and subsequent order passed by the Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as in terms of the decision taken by the SBSTC Board in its 125th meeting dated June 10th 2010 to implement the Pension Regulation, 2002 in the line of North Bengal State Transport Corporation/Calcutta State Transport Corporation immediately;”

Contention of the petitioners:-

2. The Durgapur State Transport Corporation (in short ‘DSTC’) was established with effect from 7 December, 1973 vide notification dated 4 December, 1973 issued by the Government of West Bengal in exercise of its power under Sec. 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (in short ‘RTC Act’). Vide notification dated 17 March, 1988 the name of DSTC was changed to SBSTC.

3. Sec. 47B(1)(f) of the RTC Act, 1950 which is a State amendment reads as follows:-

“(f) Persons employed by the State Government in connection with the State undertaking and continuing in office immediately before the establishment of the Corporation shall be employed by the Corporation on such terms and conditions, not less advantageous than what they were entitled to immediately before such establishment, as may be determined by the Corporation”

4. The SBSTC Employees’ Pension Regulations, 2002 were framed for the benefit of the employees of SBSTC. However, a decision dated 8 April, 2003 was taken by the Board of SBSTC not to implement the Pension Regulations, 2002 in view of the fact that only 189 retired employees of SBSTC had opted for the scheme and none of the current employees opted for the same. The petitioners contend that prior to such decision the petitioners had made representations dated 25 July, 2002 and 9 August, 2002 for modification of the Pension Regulations since they were not at par with the State Government Regulations pertaining to pensionary benefits. The decision of SBSTC not to implement the 2002 Regulations was challenged by 60 retired employees by filing WP No. 13475 (W) of 2003 in this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by Pratap Kumar Ray, J. (as His Lordship then was) by a judgment and order dated 25 April, 2008. The operative portion of the said judgment and order reads as follows:-

“36. Considering all material facts and on considering the respective affidavits of the parties and having regard to the findings and observations as above, writ application, accordingly, succeeds.

37. It is ordered that writ petitioners and all the retired employees who opted the Pension Regulations, 2002 are entitled to get the benefits of death-cum-retirement benefits in terms of the South Bengal State Transport Corporation Employees’ Pension Regulations, 2002. The respondents are directed to take steps for release of the pension and other death-cum-retirement benefits in terms of the said Regulations, 2002 by implementing the Pension Regulations, 2002 in respect of the writ petitioners and the other employees who opted such Pension Regulations, 2002 by releasing their all arrears amount of pension and other dues within four months from this date and to start to releas













































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top