CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. versus ASHIT CHAKRABORTY & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 08-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS.
v.
ASHIT CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3462 of 2023)
MAY 8, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service
(Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 – Respondent
no.1 was appointed in the Corporation as conductor in 1981 when
there was no pension scheme in force, only Contributory Provident
Fund (CPF) Scheme was applicable – The 1990 Regulations were
framed in 1991 providing for pension scheme for the employees,
effective from 01.04.1984 – Existing employees were to give an
option to avail benefit under the 1990 Regulations – Respondent
no.1 submitted his option within time – He sought voluntary
retirement in 2017 – Apart from certain retiral benefits, no pension
was paid to him – Representation made by Respondent no.1, not
considered – Filed writ petition, allowed by the Single Judge – Order
upheld by Division Bench – Held: No merit in the argument raised
by the appellant regarding the waiver of the right to receive pension
by the Respondent no.1 – There was no conscious abandonment of
right to receive pension by the respondent no.1 to deprive him of
his pension – Respondent no.1 exercised his right to receive pension
under the 1990 Regulations in the year 1991 – Thereafter, it was
the duty of the Corporation 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, cannot be a ground to
defeat his rightful claim – Corporation was at fault in implementing
the 1990 Regulations in the cases of number of employees though
these were notified on 04.01.1991 and were given retrospective
effect from 01.04.1984 – For any fault on the part of the
Corporation, the employees cannot be made to suffer – No error in
the orders passed by the High Court– Road Transport Corporation
Act, 1950–s.45.
Kalpraj Dharamshi and Another v. Kotak Investment
Advisors Limited and Another (2021) 10 SCC 401 –
referred to.
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 203
203
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2021) 10 SCC 401
referred to
Para 10
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3462
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.03.2021 of the High Court
at Calcutta in FMA No. 692 of 2019.
Sanjay R Hegde, Sr. Adv., Adeel Ahmed, Raja Chatterjee, Piyush
Sachdev, Aditya Pathak, Md Sharuk Ali, Raghav Gupta, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Subhashish Bhowmick, Manas Kumar Ghos, Ms. Susmita Dey,
Ms. Manisha Pandey, Rahul Kushwaha, John Thomas Arakal, Ms. Mani
Mala Roy, Harsh Gupta, H. K. Naik, Ms. Tanvi Singh, Bhanu Mishra,
Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RAJESH BINDAL, J.
Leave granted.
1. The order dated 5.3.2021 passed in F.M.A. No. 692 of 2019 by
the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta has been challenged
before this Court wherein order dated 17.8.2018 passed by the Single
Bench in Writ Petition bearing W.P. No. 6808 (W) of 2018 was upheld.
2. It is a case in which the respondent no.1 was appointed as a
Conductor with the appellant Corporation. At that time there was no
pension scheme in force, only Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was
applicable. In 1991, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 45 of
the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, the Corporation, with the
previous sanction of the State Government, framed The Calcutta State
Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement
Benefits) Regulations, 1990 (for short, “the 1990 Regulations”). The
aforesaid Regulations came into force with retrospective effect from
1.4.1984. The 1990 Regulations mandated that in order to get the benefit
of the said scheme, existing employees of the Corporation will have to
submit written option within six months from the date of publication of
the 1990 Regulations expressing their willingness to switch over to the
said pension scheme instead of maintaining their status as C.P.F. holder.
The 1990 Regulations also provided that it shall be optional to the existing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
205
employees, however, it shall be binding upon the new entrants on and
after the date of Notification of the 1990 Regulations.
3. The respondent no.1 opted for pension scheme. On 21.7.2017,
he opted for voluntary retirement, which was accepted by the Corporation
and he retired on 31.7.2017. On his retirement the respondent no. 1 was
paid an amount of ` 13,28,495/- to
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.