The main legal point established in the judgment is that once an employee exercises an option in accordance with the applicable regulations, the employer is obligated to give effect to the option and disburse the entitled benefits, and any fault on the part of the employer cannot be used to defeat the rightful claim of the employee.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. Although, this matter was heard on 4th January 2024 and an order was passed, yet while tallying the records since, the original affidavit-in-opposition was not found in the file, the matter has come up under the heading “to be mentioned”.

2. Today, the learned advocate appearing for the respondents files the original affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 before this Court. Let the same be retained with the record.

3. In view of the aforesaid, the unsigned order dated 4th January 2023 is recalled and the matter is accordingly heard afresh.

4. The petitioner was an employee of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “said Corporation”). The petitioner was superannuated on 31st January, 2018.

5. 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 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.

6. Records reveal that notwithstanding the direction passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 16th December, 2019, Corporation did not file the affidavit-in-opposition, until today. From such affidavit it would be apparent and clear that the petitioner during his service tenure in terms of the said Regulation had exercised his option in the year 1991.

7. 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 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.

8. 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