Jnan Ranajan Das & Ors vs South Bengal State Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 529 Cal

25.01.2021
     08
 RP Ct.04
                                     F MA 868 of 2017
                                           +
                      IA No.CAN 3 of 2019 (Old No. CAN 6479 of 2019)
                                    Jnan Ranajan Das & Ors.
                                             Versus
                         South Bengal State Transport Corporation & Ors.

             Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, sr. adv.
             Mr. Shamim Ahmed
             Mr. Arka Maity
                                               ....    For Appellants
             Mr. Ayan Banerjee
             Ms. Debasree Dhamali
                                               ....     For SBSTC
             Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
             Mr. Subrata Guha Biswas
                                               ....     For State




                   Mr. Bhattacharya, learned senior advocate appears
             on behalf of appellants. He draws attention to impugned
             order to submit, he would demonstrate that by reason of
             judgment dated 18th July, 2018 in WP 13475 (W) of
             2003 (Sri Sudarshanmoy Ghosh vs. South Bengal State
             Transport      Corporation)     there   has   been   finding   by
             coordinate Bench, petitioners therein had legally exercised
             option. On introduction of the Pension Scheme of 2002,
             service condition of his clients, since retired, cannot have
             been made less advantageous. Considering the scope and
             effect of the State Government creating corporations, for
             absorbing its employees per enacted legislation, physical
             exercise of option by his clients cannot be insisted upon.
             In any event, exercise of option that respondents have

obtained from other employees, to give them the benefit, was to get executed indemnity bonds (page 189 of paper book).

We have noticed that in the judgment dated 18th July, 2018 the division Bench had recorded, inter alia, as follows:-

"It is the case of the petitioners that all of them duly submitted their 'option form' supplied by the Corporation, within the stipulated time. But the appellant Corporation failed to respond. It was, in view of the inaction on the part of the appellant/Corporation that the present writ petition came to be filed."

We have also noticed, appellants in paragraph 18 of their writ petition had said, inter alia, as follows:-

"But it is a matter of great regret that in spite of making the said Pension Regulations with previous sanction of the State Government and publishing communiques in the news papers inviting options from its retired employees and accepting options in the prescribed form supplied by it from them within the time fixed by it the South Bengal Transport Corporation did not implement the said Pension Regulations as yet."

Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 submits, no affidavit-in-opposition was filed by his clients, though affidavit-in-opposition to the stay application has been filed, denying that appellants had exercised options.

Pleadings in said writ petition (WP 13475 (W) of 2003 (Sri Sudarshanmoy Ghosh vs. South Bengal State Transport Corporation)) are required to be seen, to appreciate finding in said judgment, relied upon by Mr. Bhattacharya. Let records of said writ petition be produced for purpose of hearing of this appeal.

List on 1st February, 2021.

(Arindam Sinha, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)