The main legal point established is the obligation of the Corporation to disburse pension in accordance with the employee's option exercised under the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990, and the recognition of the employee's right to receive pension immediately after retirement.

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 28th February 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, whereby 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 favour of the petitioner in terms of the said Regulation. 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 7th December 2017, CSTC had filed a report in the form of an affidavit on 2nd January, 2020. 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 12th August, 1991.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the petitioner submit 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 placing reliance on a judgment delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashit Chakraborty vs. State of West Bengal and Others in WP No. 6808 (W) of 2018, on 17th August, 2018 it is submitted that in identical set of facts, the Coordinate Bench having found that the Corporation could not hold back the legitimate claim of the employee 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 No. 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, the Corporation had applied before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11991 of 2021. By a judgment and order dated 8th May, 2023 the Hon’ble Supreme Court after granting leave to appeal had dismissed the same by, inter-alia, observing as follows:

“It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 1 had exercised his right to receive pension under the 1990 Regulations in the year 1991. Thereafter, it was the duty of the Corporation to have given effect to the same. Merely, because thee were some wrong deductions from his salary and he was treated as member of the CPF Scheme, cannot be permitted to be raised as a ground to defeat his rightful claim. The pension was to start after retirement of the respondent. When the same was not released to him, immediately representation was made by him. As no response was received from the appellant, the writ petition was filed. The argument that there are number of similarly situated employees who will also state 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 the 1990 Re