The Supreme Court Bench, consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka emphasised that the Corporation cannot deny employees their rightful pension entitlement on the grounds of technical objections or the Corporation's own faults.
The Apex Court upheld the High Court's assessment that the Corporation was at fault for not implementing the Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees’ Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulations, 1990”). Consequently, the Bench ordered the Corporation to refund the excess provident fund contributions and gratuity, along with interest.
Brief Facts:
Respondent No.1 was appointed as a Conductor with the Appellant-Corporation when there was no pension scheme in place. However, in 1991, the Corporation framed the Regulations, 1990 which had a retrospective effect. These regulations required existing employees to submit a written option within six months to switch to the pension scheme instead of maintaining their status as CPF holders.
Respondent No. 1 chose the pension scheme and subsequently opted for voluntary retirement, which the Corporation accepted. He received various amounts upon retirement, but the pension was not paid. Respondent No.1 made a representation and filed a writ petition when his claim for pension was not considered. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition which the Corporation appealed against this order, but the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge. Hence, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the subsequent conduct of the Respondent No.1 indicated a lack of interest in the scheme. Deductions were regularly made from his salary for the provident fund, and statements were sent to him, but he never raised any objections until after his retirement. Hence, it was contended that he should not be permitted to benefit from the pension scheme.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was argued that Respondent No.1 had fulfilled the requirement of submitting an option within the specified timeframe as per the Regulations, 1990. Further, it is the responsibility of the employer, the Appellant-Corporation, to accurately calculate the Respondent’s salary and make the necessary deductions accordingly. If any mistakes were made by the Corporation, the Respondent should not be made to suffer as a result. The amount received by the Respondent upon his retirement was accepted in good faith, assuming it was his rightful entitlement.
It was also contended that Respondents were unaware that the Corporation would not provide him with a pension and that an excess amount had been paid. This was solely the fault of the Corporation. It was only after his retirement that the Respondent became aware of the non-payment of his pension, leading him to make a representation that went unanswered, forcing him to approach the High Court.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation's arguments that the Respondent had not objected to deductions from his salary. The Apex Court upheld the High Court's assessment that the Corporation was at fault for not implementing the Regulations, 1990. Consequently, the Bench ordered the Corporation to refund the excess provident fund contributions and gratuity, along with interest. The Top Court opined that the Respondent's legitimate claim should not be undermined by technical objections or the Corporation's mistakes.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the impugned order of the High Court.
Case Title: Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. v Ashit Chakraborty & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.3462 of 2023
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 452 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Justice Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal and Hon'ble Justice Mr. Justice Abhay S.Oka
Advocates for Petitioners: Advs. Mr. Sanjay R Hegde, Mr. Adeel Ahmed, Mr. Raja Chatterjee, Mr. Piyush Sachdev, Mr. Aditya Pathak, Mr. Md Sharuk Ali, Mr. Raghav Gupta
Advocates for Respondents: Advs. Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Mr. Manas Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Susmita Dey, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Mr. Rahul Kushwaha, Mr. Harsh Gupta, Mr. John Thomas Arakal, Ms. Mani Mala Roy, Mr. H.K. Naik, Ms. Tanvi Singh, Ms. Astha Sharma
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
