SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 361

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.
Krishna Guha - Appellant
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondent
W.P.A. 11614 of 2024
Decided On : 14-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner: Mr. Swarup Paul, Adv. Mr. Guru Saday Dutta, Adv. Mr. Anish Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Amal Kumar Sen, AGP, Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal, Adv.

Pension is a recognized right, and waiver of rights must be informed and conscious; prior undertakings do not negate rights established by subsequent regulations.

Headnote:(A) DCRB-CSTC Scheme, 1990 - Third Amendment - Pension rights - The deceased employee did not exercise an option under the DCRB Regulations during employment but submitted an option post-retirement, which was denied by CSTC. The court held that the circular allowing post-retirement options created a legitimate right for the employee. Waiver of rights must be conscious and informed; the employee's prior undertaking did not constitute a waiver of the right to pension established by the circular. (Paras 19-22, 29)

(B) Pension as a right - The court emphasized that pension is not a discretionary benefit but a right governed by regulations; denial of pension based on previous undertakings made without knowledge of subsequent regulations is unjust. (Paras 25-26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought pensionary benefits for her deceased husband, who did not opt for a pension scheme during his employment but applied post-retirement under a new amendment. The CSTC denied the claim based on a prior undertaking.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the deceased employee's right to the pension scheme under the third amendment was valid and should be honored by CSTC, highlighting the importance of equitable treatment in pension claims.

Issues: The main issue was whether the deceased's prior undertaking constituted a waiver of rights to claim pension under the DCRB scheme after the introduction of the third amendment circular.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the circular provided a new right, and the previous undertaking could not negate the rights established by the subsequent regulation. Waiver requires conscious abandonment of known rights, which was not present in this case.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. background of deceased employee's pension application. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments regarding entitlement under the pension scheme. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
3. court's interpretation of rights under the circular. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25)
4. final directions for pension disbursement. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT : 

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Facts :

1. The deceased husband of the petitioner, viz. Arun Kumar Guha, since deceased was an employee of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (CSTC). The deceased employee retired on February 28, 2001. The deceased employee died on February 4, 2010, the Death Certificate is available at page 26 to the writ petition.

2. During the tenure of employment of the deceased employee, the Death- cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme of CSTC (for short the DCRB-CSTC Scheme) was introduced in 1990. Such Scheme was amended from time to time. The first amendment was notified on January 4, 1994. The second amendment was on February 10, 1999, when the deceased employee was in employment. The third amendment was notified on March 5, 2002, after the retirement of the deceased employee. The said third amendment is the solitary consideration in the instant writ proceeding.

3. Following the said third amendment dated March 5, 2002 a circular was issued on April 23, 2002 at page 18 to the writ petition. The content of the said circular dated April 23, 2002 is quoted below.

“CIRCULAR

In pursuance of the kind directives of the Managing Director vide Memo No.002/806 dt. 22.03.2002, this is for information of all concerned that the following arrangements have been made towards distribution and receipt of Option Form for Pensions in terms of 3rd amendment of C.S.T.C. Employees‟ DCRB Regulation, 1990.

1) Option Forms will be distributed and received from 12 noon to 1 P.M. on all working days in the Central Pay Group Section, Head Quarters for the retired employees and others.

2) Forms in duplicate will be issued only to all those employees/retirees concerned who could not and/or did not exercise option or consent previously. Question of re- submission of Option by any one who has already submitted either option or consent would not arise as per provision of the 3rd amendment.

3) Shri Gopinath Halder, L.D.Clerk has been entrusted with the job for distribution and receipt of the Forms.

4) Last date of submission of Option Form is 4.6.2002 (upto 5 P.M.)”

4. By a letter dated December 29, 2000, Annexure-R1 at page 7 to the report in the form of affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the deceased employee had informed his employer that, he did not exercise any option in terms of the DCRB Regulations, 1990. He did not submit any consent form in terms of the amended DCRB Regulations, 1998. He further declared that, he would not lodge any claim for pension in future in terms of DCRB Regulations, 1990. He also requested his employer to grant Gratuity under the Gratuity Act, 1972 as amended from time to time.

5. On May 22, 2002 the deceased employee after his retirement has submitted an option form, Annexure-P2 at page 19 to the writ petition, stating that he could not submit the relevant option form in terms of DCRB Regulations, 1990 during his employment, however, he submitted the option form in terms of the said third amendment of DCRB Regulations, 1990 following Sub-Clauses (1) and (2) to Clause 6 of the said third amendment circular.

6. Since no step was taken by CSTC, the deceased employee on July 13, 2009 submitted a representation, Annexure-P3 at page 21 to the writ petition with all the relevant documents. Since no step was taken, the petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee submitted a further representation dated January 20, 2014, Annexure-P5 at page 27 to the writ petition.

7. As the claim of the deceased employee nor of the petitioner was acceded to, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following reliefs :

“a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top