Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati 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