IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad

And

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

FMA 647 of 2023

Barid Baran Bose

Vs.

Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors.

For the Appellant : Ms. Sujatna Mukherjee

For the CSTC` : Mr. Amal Kumar Sen

Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal

Judgment on : December 3, 2025

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

1. The writ petitioner is the appellant in the present proceedings aggrieved by an

order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 13207(W) of

2014 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed.

2. The appellant claims that he retired from service of the respondent Calcutta

State Transport Corporation (CSTC for short), while working as a Charge Hand

II (Motor Mechanic). The petitioner sought the following relief: –

“a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their subordinates to release full pension under the Death cum Retirement Benefits scheme. 1990 and also to release the entire retirement benefits with interest in favour of the petitioner forthwith

without taking the Letter dated 24.3.10.

b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their subordinates to release the leave salary with interest in favour of the petitioner;

c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their subordinates to release the ad-hoc amount in respect of pension and other retrial benefits till finalized the pension and also to calculate properly in respect of leave salary and the same should be paid with interest to the petitioner;

d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce the records connecting this case so that conscionable justice may be done;

e) Rule NISI in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c);

f) Ad-interim order directing the respondents and/or their subordinates to release the pension and other retirement benefits including leave salary with interest in favour of the petitioner forthwith and/or to pass such other or further order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper;”

3. It is not in dispute that for receiving the benefits claimed in the writ proceeding there was a requirement as per circular dated 06.05.1991, to exercise an option for being governed under the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Scheme 1990 (hereinafter referred to as DCRB ).

“ ”

4. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2006. He was paid leave salary and gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 at the time of his retirement. Relying upon a resolution dated 11.10.2000, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2014; about eight years after appellant retired (30.06.2006) from service, raising a claim for grant of benefit under DCRB.

5. In the appeal relief is claimed on an adverse presumption arising from the fact that the authorities have not shown the concerned register maintained in the establishment wherein the name and details of employees who submitted their option for DCRB benefits was maintained. The petitioner/ appellant relies upon a text of the discussion of a meeting held on 29.09.2000 between the Chairman, Managing Director and CAO cum FA of the CSTC. He submits that it is apparent from a perusal of the same that the option form submitted by the petitioner for exercising his option for grant of pension under the DCRB was misplaced by the authorities. It is submitted that the 1991 circular did not contain any condition for acknowledgement of submission of option form. The authorities have failed in the offices taon ds hdoewp otthse, wrehgiicshte wr emrea inretaqiunierded i nt ot hbee acpopneslulaltnetd’s teos taasbcleisrhtamine nt claim. Since the register of the concerned office was not shown toth teh ep epteittiiotinoenre’rs an adverse presumption arises in his favour that he had submitted an option for benefit of DCRB.

6. The learned Advocate has relied on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pradip Buragohain vs. Pranati Phukan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1