The Corporation is obligated to disburse pension in accordance with the employee's option under the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990, and cannot use technical objections to defeat the rightful claim for pension.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The original petitioner was an employee of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “said Corporation”). The petitioner was superannuated on 31st March, 2017. Consequent upon the death of the original petitioner, during the pendency of the writ petition his legal heirs have been substituted.

2. It is the petitioners’ 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 petitioners contend that in terms of the said Regulation the original petitioner 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 petitioners’ case that notwithstanding exercising such option pension was not disbursed in favour of the original petitioner in terms of the said Regulation. In such circumstances, the original petitioner had made a representation for release of his monthly pension. Since his representation was not adhered to, the original 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 December, 2017, CSTC had filed a report in the form of an affidavit on 2nd January, 2020. From such report it would be apparent and clear that the original petitioner during his service tenure in terms of the said Regulation had exercised his option on 13th September, 1991.

4. Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the petitioners submit that once the respondents had recognized that the original 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 original 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.

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