The division judge bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs Ashit Chakraborty & Ors. held that merely because there were some wrong deductions from his salary, the employee can’t be denied pension on this ground.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a conductor with the Appellant corporation. At the time, only the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme was applicable; no pension plan was in place. The Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees' Service (Death cum Retirement Benefits) Regulations, 1990 were introduced by the Corporation in 1991 as an exercise of the power conferred to it by Section 45 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The State Government had previously given its prior approval.
The Regulations came into force with retrospective effect from 1.4.1984. As per the 1990 Regulations, present Corporation employees have to submit a written option within six months of the 1990 Regulations' publication date expressing their desire to join the aforementioned pension plan rather than continue to hold a C.P.F.
Respondent no. 1 applied for the pension scheme and received ₹13,28,495/- towards CPF contribution, ₹ 7,44,265/- towards gratuity, ₹ 2,58,012/- towards VRS Compensation, and a sum of ₹ 2,409/- towards leave salary. Respondent No. 1 made a representation as no pension was made to them.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that Respondent No. 1 didn’t object to the reductions from his salary at that time and raised an issue after his retirement. Therefore, he shouldn’t be allowed to avail the benefit of the scheme.
Contentions of the Respondent No.1:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 1 contended that he should not be made to suffer because of the mistake committed by the corporation. It was further contended that he got to know that the pension is not being paid to him only after retirement.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble Top Court observed that the fact that he was treated as a member of the CPF Scheme and certain incorrect deductions from his pay was made cannot be used as a défence against his legitimate claim. After the respondent retired, the pension was to begin. He instantly made a representation when the same was not given to him.
The Hon’ble Court rejected the argument made by the Appellant that other employees in a similar situation will also make their claims by stating that this will not stop this Court from providing the respondent with the relief, which is legitimately due to him.
It was noted that even though the 1990 Regulations were introduced on April 1, 1991, and took effect retrospectively on April 1, 1984, the Corporation made a mistake in how it applied them to the number of employees. The attempt is made to raise unpersuadable technical arguments. The employees cannot be forced to suffer as a result of any error on the Corporation's behalf.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the present appeal.
Case Title: Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. Vs Ashit Chakraborty & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 452 SC
Case No: Civil Appeal No. 3462 of 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11991/2021
Advocate for the Appellant:
Advocate for the Respondent:
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
