Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

SC Upholds Employee's Right To Pension Benefits Under The Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees' Service Regulations, 1990

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Subject: Service Law - Pension benefits -Pension benefits under the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 - Technical Objections, Right to Receive Pension, Waiver.

On 8 May 2023, In Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Ashit Chakraborty & Ors., the Supreme Court has upheld the right of an employee of the Calcutta State Transport Corporation to receive pension benefits under The Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 ("the 1990 Regulations").

The employee in question was appointed as a Conductor with the Corporation, when there was no pension scheme in force. In 1991, the Corporation, with the previous sanction of the State Government, framed the 1990 Regulations, which came into force with retrospective effect from 1.4.1984. The Regulations mandated that existing employees of the Corporation will have to submit a written option within six months from the date of publication of the Regulations expressing their willingness to switch over to the pension scheme instead of maintaining their status as CPF holders.

The respondent employee opted for the pension scheme and sought voluntary retirement in 2017. On his retirement, he was paid certain retiral benefits, however, no pension was paid to him for which he had exercised the option. He made a representation on the same, which was not acted upon by the Corporation, and he had to file a writ petition before the High Court. The Single Judge allowed the petition, directing the Corporation to release the pension, which was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.

The Corporation challenged the order before the Supreme Court, contending that the employee was not interested in the pension scheme, as he had not objected to the regular deductions from his salary towards CPF, and had raised the issue only after retirement.

Rejecting the arguments of the Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the employee had a legitimate right to receive pension benefits under the 1990 Regulations, and that any technical objections raised by the Corporation cannot be allowed to defeat his claim. The Court noted that the Corporation was at fault in not acting upon the option exercised by the employee, and that the employee had immediately made a representation on non-receipt of pension, which was not responded to by the Corporation.

The Court also observed that the Corporation had wasted about five years’ time in avoidable litigation and deprived the employee of his rightful claim.

Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the orders passed by the High Court.

8 May 2023, 

Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs. Ashit Chakraborty & Ors.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/08-May-2023-CALCUTTA-STATE-TRANSPORT-Vs-Ashit.pdf"]

Latest Legal News