{"id":292326,"date":"2023-05-16T17:00:03","date_gmt":"2023-05-16T11:30:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=292326"},"modified":"2023-05-16T16:53:21","modified_gmt":"2023-05-16T11:23:21","slug":"sc-upholds-calcutta-high-courts-order-directing-stc-calcutta-releasing-employees-pension-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/05\/16\/sc-upholds-calcutta-high-courts-order-directing-stc-calcutta-releasing-employees-pension-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"SC upholds Calcutta High Court’s order directing the STC, Calcutta to release employee’s pension"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/b> In a civil appeal challenging the order of the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, wherein the order of Single Judge was upheld, directing the petitioner to release the pension of the respondent within the period of two weeks. The Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal<\/b>*, JJ., upheld the order and judgment of the High Court.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/h4>\n

In the matter at hand, at the time of respondent’s appointment as a conductor with the Calcutta State Transport Corporation (‘appellant’) there was no pension scheme in force, only Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (‘CPF’) was applicable. The Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 (‘1990 Regulations’) were framed providing for pension scheme for the employees, which was effective from 1-4-1984. In terms thereof, the existing employees were given an option to avail the benefits under the 1990 Regulations. The respondent had submitted his option within time. He sought voluntary retirement on 21.7.2017. Certain retiral benefits were paid to him, however, no pension was paid. He filed a representation on 8-5-2018 but no action was taken thereon. Hence, he filed a writ petition before the High Court.<\/p>\n

The High Court had ordered the present petitioner to release the pension of the present respondent within the period of two weeks for the month of August 2018 and shall go on paying the monthly pension as per the usual practice with the Corporation. The order was challenged by the petitioner before the Division Bench of the High Court, wherein the Single Bench’s order was upheld.<\/p>\n

Hence, the present appeal before the Court.<\/p>\n

Court’s Decision<\/h4>\n

On perusal of various documents, the Court found that the respondent had submitted his option for the pension scheme within the stipulated time immediately after the 1990 Regulations were notified. The Court found that the petitioner was at fault for not acting upon the option exercised by the respondent. Thus, the Court directed the respondent to refund the employer share of provident fund as well as the amount of gratuity paid in excess to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum within two weeks. On receipt of the amount, the petitioner was directed to release the pension within two weeks from August 2018 onwards. As far as arrears of pension from August 2017 to July 2018 were concerned, direction was given to liquidate the same in three equal monthly instalments from September 15, 2018, onwards. The arrears were also to carry interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum.<\/p>\n

The Court said that it was not in dispute that the respondent had exercised his right to receive pension under the 1990 Regulations in the year 1991. However, it was the duty of the petitioner to have given effect to the same. Merely because there were some wrong deductions from his salary and he was treated as member of the CPF Scheme, it cannot be permitted to be raised as a ground to defeat his rightful claim.<\/p>\n

The Court also said that the argument raised by the petitioner, that there are number of similarly situated employees who will also stake their claims, shows that the petitioner was at fault in implementing the 1990 Regulations in the cases of number of employees though these were notified on 4.1.1991 and were given retrospective effect from 1.4.1984. Further, the Court said that for any fault on the part of the petitioner, the employees cannot be made to suffer.<\/p>\n

[Calcutta STC v. Ashit Chakraborty, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 594<\/a>, Decided on 08-05-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment Authored by: Justice Rajesh Bindal<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Know Thy Judge | Supreme Court of India: Justice Rajesh Bindal<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n