Md. Hasibur Rahaman vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 5117 Cal

   M/L 38                IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
05.08.2022              CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
  sb
   Ct23                         APPELLATE SIDE

                                   WPA 10236 of 2022

                                   Md. Hasibur Rahaman
                                             Vs.
                               The State of West Bengal & Ors.

                         Mr.   Anindya Bose,
                         Mr.   Safiur Rahman,
                         Mr.   Diptendu Mandal,
                         Mr.   Nikhil Kumar Gupta
                                       ... For the petitioner.

                         Dr. Madhusudan Saha Ray
                                   ... For WBSEDCL




                   The petitioner after serving Indian Navy had been

             re-employed in West Bengal State Electricity Board (in

             short, WBSEB) and retired from services on attaining the

             age of superannuation with effect from 30th June, 2008.

             After the bifurcation of WBSEB, the petitioner is now a

             retired employee under West Bengal State Electricity

             Distribution Company Limited (in short, WBSEDCL). The

             petitioner says that despite having retired in 2008, he

             has not been paid the pension.


                   On behalf of WBSEDCL, it is submitted that

             WBSEB     Employees'     (Death-cum-Retirement      Benefit)

             Regulation, 1985 was applicable to an employee like the

             petitioner as he joined after 1st April, 1981 and the said

             Regulation was also in force at the time when the

             petitioner retired. However, in view of the provisions of

             Regulation 2B of the said 1985 Regulation, the said 1985
                            2




Regulation is not applicable to military pensioners re-

employed in the Board's service even if appointed after

publication of the said 1985 Regulations i.e. 4th May,

1985. In view of such provision, the petitioner is not

governed by the 1985 Regulation though he had served

WBSEB during the period when such Regulation was in

force in respect of other employees than the military

pensioners.


      On behalf of WBSEDCL, it is further submitted

that prior to the 1985 Regulation brought into operation

all employees of WBSEB were under the Contributory

Provident Fund Scheme (in short, CPF). After 1985, with

the 1985 Regulation made operational from 1st April,

1981 General Provident Fund (in short, GPF) scheme was

introduced. The employees were given option to opt for

continuing under CPF or to shift to GPF. Since 1985

Regulation is not applicable, the petitioner as a military

pensioner has to be under CPF scheme whether he had

opted out of the CPF scheme or had not exercised his

option to remain in the CPF scheme.


      WBSEDCL, as submitted by its learned advocate,

that in order to resolve the dispute, the petitioner has

been provided with the necessary forms and documents

for claiming pension under CPF scheme. Although, the

petitioner has submitted the filled in form but there are

some errors apparent in the same which unless rectified
                                    3




cannot be processed for disbursing the pension.


       Without further going into the matter whether the

petitioner is under the CPF or the GPF since the

petitioners by submitting the form has accepted to be in

CPF, at this stage, I direct the petitioner to rectify the

form within a period of three weeks from date if

necessary after collecting the application form already

submitted with WBSEDCL or else by filing a new form

with   details.   If   a   fresh       submission   is   necessary,

WBSEDCL, shall provide a fresh application form by

pointing out the mistakes to the petitioner so that the

same can be rectified and filed afresh.


       WBSEDCL is directed to process the pension

papers, issue pension payment order to the petitioner

and disburse the current pension within a period of four

months from the date of submission of the corrected

form/fresh form as applicable.


       So far as the arrears amounts are concerned, the

 petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 6 per

 cent per annum from the date of his retirement till the

 actual payment thereof. The petitioner is entitled to

 interest in view of the ratio laid down in the judgment of

 the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2022) 4 SCC

 627 (Dr. A Selvaraj vs. CBM College and Ors.). The

 interest is paid as an by way of compensation, as the

 petitioner was deprived of the fruits of the money which
                            4




 he was entitled to receive on his retirement and on the

 other hand, WBSEDCL without having been made to pay

 have derived benefit out of the same. The rate of interest

 allowed is fair and reasonable in view of the ratio laid

 down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

 (2021) 11 SCC 543 (State of Andhra Pradesh and

 Another vs. Dinavahi Lakshmi Kameswari).


      Nothing further remains to be adjudicated in this

 writ petition. The same is disposed of accordingly without

 any order as to costs.


      Since I have not called for any affidavits,

allegation made in the writ petition are deemed to have

not been admitted by the respondents.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of

necessary formalities.

(Arindam Mukherjee, J.)