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 pension, and technical objections cannot be raised to defeat the rightful claim of the employee.

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 31st May, 2016.

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 disbursed for a limited period starting from June, 2016 to January, 2018. Since February, 2018 the same was stopped. 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 18th June, 2018, CSTC had filed a report in the form of an affidavit on 6th August, 2018. 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 28th January, 1992.

4. Mr. Paul learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that in the interregnum all on a sudden the petitioner received an intimation from its banker on 3rd July, 2017 that an amount of Rs. 2396/- had been deposited in his bank account under Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. Initially, the petitioner thought that such amount had been deposited by way of mistake. Later, when a fresh deposit was made in August, 2017 and the petitioner was served with a Pension Payment Order dated 21st August, 2017, issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization, the petitioner had immediately made a representation explaining all details as regards exercise of option under the said Regulation. Copy of such representation was duly forwarded by the petitioner to the Accounts Officer (Fund) of the Corporation. Since, the same did not yield any result, the petitioner was compelled to make a further representation to the Administrative Personal Officer of the Corporation and then again to the Accounts Officer (Fund) of the Corporation and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 16th February, 2018. Consequent upon the same the above pension under the EPF Scheme 95 was stopped from March 2018.

5. According to Mr. Paul, the petitioner had signed a declaration sometimes in the year 2018 at the instance of the respondents claiming that he did not submit any option form under the said Regulation and will not claim any benefit in future. According to Mr. Paul, the aforesaid document was executed under a false premise. Be that as it may, according to Mr. Pal, the aforesaid document could not have disentitled the petitioner from claiming his pension under the said Regulation. Admittedly, the respondent had not disbursed the employer’s share of provident fund contribution and/or the entire gratuity amount. According to Mr. Paul, the petitioner to be entitled to the benefits of the said Regulation, had voluntarily by exercising option form, relinquished his right to receive the employer’s share of contribution to his provident fund account. The respondents had acted on the basis of the aforesaid option form and had not made payment of employer’s share of provident fund.

6. In the circumstances, as aforesaid, the respondents cannot be permitted to deny the petitioner the benefits under the said Regulation. According to the petitioner, once, the respondents had recognized that the