Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Amrita Sinha, J.
Sitala Mandal (chaudhuri) - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal And Others - Respondent
WPA No. 964 of 2022
Decided On : 08-02-2022
Pension - Entitlement to receive pension from the date following retirement - DCRB Rules - 2013 (3) CHN (CAL) 711, Md. Abdul Ghani -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. (GA No. 64 of 2018, APOT No. 104 of 2006, APO No. 121 of 207, GA No. 627 of 2006, WP No. 1528 of 2002) - The court clarified that the employee is entitled to receive pension on and from the date following the date of retirement, not from the date of refund of the employer's share of contribution. The entitlement to receive pension is settled by the Special Bench in the earlier judgments, and the State is estopped from raising the same issue again. The State's contention that the employee will be entitled to receive pension only from the date of refund of the employer's contribution and not prior thereto cannot be accepted by the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner retired and refunded the employer's share of contribution with interest and additional interest. The petitioner claimed entitlement to receive pension from the date following retirement, while the respondents argued that the petitioner will be entitled to receive pension only from the date of refund of the employer's contribution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the employee is entitled to receive pension on and from the date following the date of retirement, as clarified in previous judgments. The State's contention was not accepted, and the Court directed the issuance of Revised Pension Payment Order in favor of the petitioner with effect from the date following the date of retirement on superannuation.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement to receive pension and the date from which it should be paid - whether from the date following retirement or from the date of refund of the employer's share of contribution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the DCRB Rules and previous judgments to establish that the employee is entitled to receive pension from the date following retirement. The State's contention was rejected, and the Court directed the issuance of Revised Pension Payment Order in favor of the petitioner with effect from the date following the date of retirement on superannuation.
Final Decision: The instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the Director of Pension, Provident Fund and Group Insurance and the concerned Treasury Officer to issue Revised Pension Payment Order in favor of the petitioner with effect from the date following the date of retirement on superannuation and to release the pension in accordance with the Revised Pension Payment Order.
JUDGMENT
Amrita Sinha, J. - The issue to be decided in the present writ petition is whether an employee will be entitled to receive pension on and from the date following retirement or from the date of refund of the employer's share of contribution.
2. The petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30th November, 2011.
3. In response to the notification published by the School Education Department being No. 79-SE(L)/SL/5S-56/13(Pt-V) dated 13th June, 2014 issued in compliance of the direction passed by the Hon'ble Special Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 16th July, 2013 in the matter of District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata -vs- Abhijit Baidya the petitioner exercised option to switch over from CPF to GPF and refunded the employer's share of contribution with interest and additional interest on 3rd September, 2014.
4. Pension Payment Order was issued in favour of the petitioner with effect from 3rd September, 2014, that is the date of refund of the employer's share of contribution.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that Pension Payment Order was erroneously issued on and from the date of refund of the employer's share of contribution with interest and additional interest instead from the date following retirement.
6. According to the petitioner, pension ought to have been released on and from the next date of retirement and not from the date of refund of the employer's share of contribution.
7. In support of the aforesaid stand the petitioner has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Court in District Inspector of Schools (S.E.), Kolkata -vs- Abhijit Baidya reported in 2013 (3) CHN (CAL) 711 and the judgment delivered on 30th September, 2019 by the Special Bench of this Court in the matter of Md. Abdul Ghani -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors. (GA No. 64 of 2018, APOT No. 104 of 2006, APO No. 121 of 207, GA No. 627 of 2006, WP No. 1528 of 2002).
8. The Court, in Abdul Ghani (supra), clarified that if an employee opted for Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme within the time framed in the notice dated 13th June, 2014 and also refunded the quantum of money that was notified, the employee shall be entitled to be paid pension from the date following the date of retirement on superannuation in accordance with the provision of the DCRB Rules.
9. The petitioner submits that as the issue has been clarified by the Hon'ble Special Bench that the employee is entitled to receive pension on and from the date following the date of retirement, accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to receive pension from the date following the date of retirement and not from the date of refund of the employer's contribution.
10. The learned advocate representing the respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioner.
11. It has been submitted that the said clarificatory judgment dated 30th September, 2019 in the matter of Md. Abdul Ghani (supra) is applicable only in respect of the pending writ petitions. The said clarification cannot be made applicable in respect of the present petitioner as the writ petition of the petitioner was not pending on the date the clarification was issued by the Hon'ble Special Bench. It has been submitted that the benefit of the order cannot be enjoyed by the fence sitters who did not approach the Court in proper time.
12. A point of estoppel has also been raised by the respondents. It has been submitted that as the Court has already decided that the employee will be entitled to receive pension from the date of refund, accordingly, the petitioners are estopped from claiming pension from the date following their retirement.
13. It has been submitted that the petitioner will be entitled to receive pension only from the date of refund of the employer's contribution and not prior thereto.
14. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have perused the judgments relied upon by them.
15. The Court, in Abhijit Baidya (supra) in paragraph 77, laid down that if the employee exercises
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee is entitled to receive pension on and from the date following the date of retirement, as clarified in previous judgments and in ac....
Pensions must be released from the retirement date, not from the date of refund, as per established legal precedents.
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
