Employee Can't Be Denied Pension On Wrong Deductions: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday said that an employee can't be denied a pension just because there were some wrong deductions on the part of the employer. 

The facts of the case are that respondent no.1 (Ashit Chakraborty) was appointed in the Calcutta State Transport as a conductor on 6.7.1981. The 1990 Regulations were framed as providing for a pension scheme for the employees, which was effective from 1.4.1984. In terms thereof, the existing employees were to give the option to avail of benefits under the 1990 Regulations. Prior to this Contributory Pension Scheme was in force. It is not in dispute that respondent no.1 had submitted his option within time. He sought voluntary retirement on 21.7.2017, w.e.f. 31.07.2017. Certain retiral benefits were paid to him, however, no pension was paid to him for which he had exercised the option. He filed a representation on 8.5.2018. No action was taken thereon. Hence, he filed a writ petition before the High Court. 8. Initially the stand taken before the Single Judge was that respondent no.1 had not submitted his option within the stipulated time. However, on perusal of the various documents produced before the Court, it was found that respondent no.1 had submitted his option way back in the year 1991 immediately after the 1990 Regulations were notified. The claim of respondent no.1 was sought to be defeated on the ground that even after exercising the option, the contribution was being deducted from his salary in terms of the membership in the CPF scheme to which he never objected. Further, the plea was sought to be raised that there are large number of similarly situated employees who will raise this claim. 9. However, the aforesaid arguments were not found to be meritorious, hence rejected by the High Court. It was found that the Corporation was at fault in not acting upon the option exercised by the respondent no.1. Finally, the direction was given to respondent no.1 to refund the employer share of provident fund as well as the amount of gratuity paid in excess to the Corporation along with interest @ 6% per annum within two weeks. On receipt of the amount, the Corporation was directed to release the pension within two weeks from August 2018 onwards. As far as arrears of pension from August 2017 to July 2018 was concerned, direction was given to liquidate the same in three equal monthly instalments from September 15, 2018 onwards. The arrears were also to carry interest @ 6% per annum. The amount was to be transferred in the bank account of respondent no.1. 

Despite the legally sustainable and equitable order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Corporation filed intra-court appeal. Vide order dated 25.6.2019, the Division Bench stayed the operation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. On consideration of the application filed by the respondent no.1 for vacation of the interim stay, the appeal itself was heard and decided finally vide impugned judgment. The only argument raised before the Division Bench was regarding the waiver. However, the same was not accepted. This principle could be applied in case there was conscious abandonment of existing legal rights. 

The Court was of the view that there was no conscious abandonment of right to receive pension by respondent no.1 to deprive him of his pension, the court said. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 had exercised his right to receive pension under the 1990 Regulations in the year 1991. Thereafter, it was the duty of the Corporation to have given effect to the same. Merely because there were some wrong deductions from his salary and he was treated as member of the CPF Scheme, cannot be permitted to be raised as a ground to defeat his rightful claim. The pension was to start after retirement of the respondent. When the same was not released to him, immediately representation was made by him. As no response was received from the appellant, the writ petition was filed. The argument that there are number of similarly situated employees who will also stake their claims, will not deter this Court in granting the relief to the respondent, which is legitimately due to him. Rather this argument shows that the Corporation was at fault in implementing the 1990 Regulations in the cases of number of employees though these were notified on 4.1.1991 and were given retrospective effect from 1.4.1984  

Technical objections are sought to be raised, which are not tenable. For any fault on the part of the Corporation, the employees cannot be made to suffer.