Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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