RAMPRASAD SENGUPTA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of Calcutta State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "said Corporation"). He was superannuated on 31/12/2017

(2.) It is the petitioner's case that the (Death-cum-Retirement) Benefit Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Regulation) which came into force with retrospective effect from 1/4/1984 is applicable to the employees of the said Corporation. The petitioner contends that in terms of the said Regulation, which was subsequently amended in the year 2002, whereby the time to exercise the option was extended till 4/6/2002. The petitioner claims to have duly exercised the option and had opted for pension cum gratuity and had relinquished his claim to the employer's contribution to his contributory provident fund account. It is the petitioner's case that notwithstanding exercising such option, pension was not disbursed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the said Regulation. In such circumstances, the petitioner had made a representation for release of his monthly pension. Since, his representation was not adhered to, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate representing the petitioner by placing reliance on the statements made in the rejoinder affirmed by the petitioner on 20/8/2018 submits that the petitioner had opted for pension on 23/9/1991. By further placing reliance on the copy of the option form which is taken on record, it is submitted that the petitioner had already made over a copy of such option form to the learned advocate representing the respondents. From the aforesaid document it would be apparent and clear that the petitioner had opted for pension-cum-gratuity and had thereby relinquished his claim to the authority's contribution to the petitioner's CPF. It is submitted that there is no denial to the statements made in the rejoinder. The respondents did not question the said document. The respondents only contend that the said document may be defective. It is submitted that once, the respondents had recognized that the petitioner had exercised his option in terms of the said Regulation it was the obligation of the respondents to disburse pension in favour of the petitioner consequent upon his retirement. By placing reliance on a judgment delivered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ashit Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. on 17/8/2018 in WP 6808 (W) of 2018, it is submitted that in identical set of facts, the Coordinate Bench having found that the Corporation could not hold back the legitimate claim of the employee who had exercised similar option, had directed the Corporation to disburse the monthly pension in favour of such ex-employee of the Corporation, including arrears of pension along with interest @ 6% per annum.