Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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