Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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