IMPORTANT POINT
The State Government rules, including the DCRB Rules, 1971, shall apply to the staff of the Board until separate regulations are framed. Rule 27 of the 1976 Rules cannot curtail the eligibility of the staff to receive retiral benefits and pension.

JUDGMENT :

Party/parties is/are represented in the order of their name/names as printed above in the cause title.

2. Under challenge in this appeal is the Judgement and Order of the Hon’ble Single Bench dated 27th June, 2022.

3. At issue before the Hon’ble Single Bench was the inaction on the part of the present appellant/the West Bengal Labour Welfare Board (for short ‘the Board’) to pay the writ petitioner/present respondent in this appeal the commuted value of his pension.

4. The respondent/writ petitioner retired after 37 years of service with the Board on the 28th of February, 2013. Post his retirement the petitioner/respondent agreed to receive 40% of the commuted value of the pension, as prayed for by him in terms of the applicable provisions.

5. The Hon’ble Single Bench ruled against the Board by, inter alia, holding that till the pension regulations of the Board are framed, in terms of the Section 18 of the West Bengal Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1974 (for short ‘the 1974 Act’), the conditions of service of each staff of the Board shall be governed by the Rules made by the State Government. The Hon’ble Single Bench further held that since the State Government employees are entitled to enjoy the commuted value of their pension in terms of the Death cum Retirement Benefit Rule, 1971 (in short ‘DCRB Rules, 1971’), such rules shall continue to apply in respect of the writ petitioner till separate regulations are framed by the Board following Section 18 (supra).

6. The second limb of argument raised by the Board relates to the effect of Rule 27 of the West Bengal Labour Welfare Fund Rules, 1976 (in short ’the 1976 Rules’) which imposed a limitation on expenditure towards the staff of the Board. The Hon’ble Single Bench held that such restraint on expenditure could not be applied to curtail the eligibility of the staff of the Board to get retiral benefits and pension. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Single Bench directed the respondent/appellant, that is the Board and the State respondents, to take necessary steps to permit commutation of 40% of the pension of the writ petitioner and pay the same to the writ petitioner within a specified period.

7. Mr. Subba, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent, submits that there is no infirmity in the reasoning of the Hon’ble Single Bench vide its Judgement and Order impugned dated 27th June, 2022 (supra).

8. The parties have exchanged their affidavits to the stay application.

9. Heard.

10. Considered.

11. This Court finds no reason to take a view different from the view taken by the Hon’ble Single Bench with regard to the scope, intent and purpose of Section 18 of the 1974 Act (supra). This Court finds that the Hon’ble Single Bench correctly reasoned that till the independent service regulations are prepared by the Board, the Rules made by the State Government will apply to the staff of the Board.

12. Such State regulations do exist in terms of the DCRB Rules, 1971 (supra). The said DCRB Rules, 1971 provide for commutation of pension in terms of the modalities laid down in the Memorandum dated 25th February, 2009 of the Pension Branch, Finance Department, Government of West Bengal, which inter alia, permits commutation for lump sum payment upto 40% of the pension.

13. There is, therefore, no reason as to why under Section 18 of the 1974 Act, read with the provisions of the DCRB Rules, 1971 and the Memorandum dated 25th February, 2009 (supra) shall not be applied to the writ petitioner/respondent. Second, this Court notices that Rule 27 of the 1976 Rules (supra) as relied upon by learned Counsel for the Board, is confined to the running expenditure of the Board covering staff expenses and welfare programmes, without touching upon the pension component and eligibility of the writ petitioner.

14. This Court is of the view that Rule 27 of the 1976 Rules cannot be read in a manner so as to deny the operation of DCRB Rules, 1971 as applied by the 1974 Act. It is a proposition wel