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 exercise does not disentitle the employee from receiving pension benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The petitioner was an employee of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “said Corporation”). The petitioner was superannuated on 30th April, 2017.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulation”) which came into force with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1984 is applicable to the employees of the said Corporation. The petitioner contends that in terms of the said Regulation, which was subsequently amended in the year 2002, the time to exercise the option was extended till 4th June, 2002. The petitioner had duly exercised the option and had opted for pension cum gratuity and had relinquished his claim to the employer’s contribution to his contributory provident fund account. It is the petitioner’s case that notwithstanding exercising such option, pension was not disbursed in his favour. In such circumstances, the petitioner had made a representation for release of his monthly pension. Since, his representation was not adhered to, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition.

3. Records reveal that in terms of the direction passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 15th February, 2018, CSTC had filed a report in the form of an affidavit on 22nd April, 2019. From such report it would be apparent and clear that the petitioner during his service tenure in terms of the said Regulation, had exercised his option on 10th January, 2002.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that once, the respondents had recognized that the petitioner had exercised his option in terms of the said Regulation, it was the obligation of the respondents to disburse pension in favour of the petitioner consequent upon his retirement. By referring to Regulation 64 of the said Regulation it is submitted that the employees of the Corporation who will exercise their option for pension under the pension Regulations will be guided by the General Provident Fund Rules, as applicable to the employees of the Government of West Bengal. Incidentally, however, before the retirement of the petitioner, he had written a letter dated 23rd July 2014, whereby, he had purported to withdraw the option exercised by him under the said Regulation. According to Mr. Ghosh, the said letter was issued on the basis of an incorrect advice. In any event, it is submitted that the said Regulation does not envisage withdrawal of option once the same is exercised. By placing a supplementary affidavit which is taken on record it is submitted that by a circular dated 21st June/7th July, 2001 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Transport Department which has been annexed to the said supplementary affidavit at page 5, the Joint Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in his communication to the Managing Director of the Corporation, while referring to the said Regulation, had categorically clarified that there is no scope to withdraw an option, once, the same is exercised. By further referring to the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPA no. 6808 (W) of 2018 in the case of Ashit Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., on 17th August, 2018, it is submitted that in an identical set of facts, the Coordinate Bench of this Court having found that the Corporation could not hold back the legitimate claim of the employees who had exercised similar option, had directed the Corporation to disburse the monthly pension in favour of such ex-employee of the Corporation including arrears of pension along with interest @6% per annum.

5. It is submitted that although, an Intra-Court Appeal was preferred, the Division Bench of this Court by a judgment and order dated 5th March, 2021, in FMA 692 of 2019 was, inter alia, pleased to affirm the said order. Mr. Ghosh further submits that challenging the aforesaid direction passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench, t