The judgment establishes the duty of the Corporation to give effect to the employee's pension option once exercised, and affirms the recognized right of an employee 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”). He was superannuated on 31st December, 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 claims to have 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. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the petitioner by placing reliance on the statements made in the rejoinder affirmed by the petitioner on 20th August 2018 submits that the petitioner had opted for pension on 23rd September 1991. By further placing reliance on the copy of the option form which is taken on record, it is submitted that the petitioner had already made over a copy of such option form to the learned advocate representing the respondents. From the aforesaid document it would be apparent and clear that the petitioner had opted for pension-cum-gratuity and had thereby relinquished his claim to the authority’s contribution to the petitioner’s CPF. It is submitted that there is no denial to the statements made in the rejoinder. The respondents did not question the said document. The respondents only contend that the said document may be defective. It is submitted 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.

4. 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