Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition claiming benefits under the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990, a single-judge bench comprising of Raja Basu Chowdhury,* J., directed the Calcutta State Transport Corporation to release the petitioner’s pension from March 2024 onwards, and arrear pension from February 2018 to February 2024 was to be disbursed with interest.
Brief Facts
In the instant matter, the petitioner, a former employee of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation, filed a writ petition seeking the disbursement of his monthly pension. The petitioner claimed that he had exercised the option under the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990, opting for pension cum gratuity and relinquishing the employer’s contribution to his contributory provident fund account. Despite exercising this option, the petitioner alleged that the Corporation failed to disburse the pension, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Moot Point
-
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the disbursement of monthly pension in accordance with the exercised option under the 1990 Regulations?
-
Whether the Corporation’s depositing of the employer’s share of contribution with the provident fund authorities affects the petitioner’s claim?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioner argued that the Corporation’s failure to disburse pension despite the exercised option is unjust. He relied on a previous judgment supporting a similar claim. On the other hand, the respondent contended that the Corporation had been depositing the employer’s share of contribution to the provident fund authorities due to an administrative error.
Court’s Assessment
After hearing both parties and considering the materials on record, the Court found that the petitioner had duly exercised the option under the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990. The Court observed that both a Division Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court had previously held that the Corporation must give effect to disburse the pension.
“Merely because there had been some wrong deductions from the salary of the employee, the said employee cannot be treated to be a member of CPF Scheme and the respondents cannot be permitted to raise the same as a ground to defeat the rightful claim for such person. The right to get pension immediately after retirement is a recognised right.”
The Court held that any wrong deductions from the petitioner’s salary should not defeat the rightful claim for pension, a recognized right immediately after retirement. The Court opined that the Corporation had an obligation to give effect to the option once exercised and directed the petitioner to refund certain amounts while ordering the release of pension from March 2024 onwards.
Court’s Decision
The Court directed the petitioner to refund the employer’s share of contribution on provident fund and excess gratuity, if any, to the Corporation with interest. The Court ordered the Corporation to release the petitioner’s pension from March 2024 onwards and pay arrear pension from February 2018 to February 2024, with interest. The petitioner must provide bank account details for the pension disbursement. No order as to costs.
[Shyamal Chandra Dey v. State of W.B., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 295, order dated 10-01-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh and Ms. Susmita Dey (Basu), Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Amal Kumar Sen and Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal, Counsel for the Respondent/CSTC
