The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Corporation cannot use financial burden as a ground for refusal to grant pensionary benefits, and that the Corporation's failure to implement the regulations for several employees was not tenable.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed, inter alia, praying for grant of pensionary benefits in terms of Calcutta State Transport Corporation Death-cum-Retirement Benefit Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Regulation”). It is the petitioners’ case that the petitioners were the employees of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). According to the petitioners, the said Regulation came into force with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1984 which is applicable to the employees of the Corporation. The petitioners contend that in terms of the said Regulation which was subsequently amended in the year 2002, a further opportunity was made available to the employees of the Corporation to exercise their options for availing the benefits under the said Regulation.

2. According to the petitioners, they had exercised their option and had opted for pension cum gratuity and had thereby, relinquished their claim to the employer’s contribution to their CPF account. According to the petitioners, notwithstanding exercising such option, since, pension was not disbursed in their favour in terms of the said Regulation, a writ petition was filed before this Court which was registered as WP no. 17861 (W) of 2008.

3. On contest, by an order dated 10th December, 2009, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, taking note of the petitioners’ grievance had directed the Managing Director of the Corporation to examine the representations of the petitioners forming annexure P-7 to the said writ petition and to take a final decision in the matter within a period of 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order.

4. Pursuant to and in terms of the aforesaid order, the Managing Director of the Corporation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties had considered the case of the petitioners in the said writ petition and had, inter alia, come to the following finding:-

“Moreover, it is revealed after perusal of the Service Books of the petitioners that most of the petitioners did not exercise their option under DCRB Regulations. Some of them even exercised option for non-availing of the pensionary benefit under CSTC (DCRB) Regulation, 1990. Only 7 petitioners (Petitioner No. 21, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38 & 40) submitted their option in the year 2002 in terms of 3rd amendment of the pension regulations.

In such view of the matter, I am disinclined to create further financial burden on the Corporation by inviting the petitioners afresh to come within the purview of the Pension Regulations, 1990, as the petitioners voluntarily availed themselves of all the compensatory benefits and existing retiral benefits as per the stipulation of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1998.”

5. According to the petitioners, since, the Managing Director of the Corporation had refused to grant the benefits citing the financial burden on the Corporation, the present writ petition has been filed. The aforesaid order of the Managing Director forms the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Mr. Neogi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners at the time of hearing of the present writ petition has submitted that notwithstanding the Managing Director of the Corporation categorically identifying that seven several employees of the Corporation who were the petitioners in the previous writ petition to have exercised their option in terms of the 3rd amendment to the said Regulation, had illegally declined to afford such employees with the benefits of the said Regulation.

7. According to Mr. Neogi, the respondents cannot choose to act contrary to the said Regulation, once, the Managing Director of the corporation had identified that option had been exercised by such seven employees it was the obligation of the Corporation to make available the benefits under the said Regulation. The financial burden on the Corporation cannot be a ground for declining the benefits whic