The judgment establishes the principle that once an employee exercises the option under the Regulation, it becomes the duty of the Corporation to disburse the pension, and technical objections raised by the Corporation are not tenable.

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 retired on 31st July, 2017 under Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

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 her claim to the employer’s contribution to her 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 her monthly pension. Since, her 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 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 her service tenure in terms of the said Regulation had exercised her option on 16th April, 1992.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the petitioner submits that once the respondents had recognized that the petitioner had exercised her option in terms of the said Regulation it was the obligation of the respondents to disburse pension in favour of the petitioner consequent upon her retirement. By placing reliance on a judgment delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashit Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors. on 17th August, 2018 in WP 6808 (W) of 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 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 1