They retired from the Corporation service in the year 1967 or thereafter but prior to April 1, 1977.
The writ petitioners respondents 1 to 43 in these appeals approached the High Court of Calcutta in the year 1985 for issuance of writ of mandamus applying the said Regulations to all those employees who retired even prior to April 1, 1977.
v. Union of India .
All of them were governed by the Provident Fund Scheme.
The writ petition was filed by the respondents for issuance of writ of mandamus companymanding the State of West Bengal and the Municipal Corporation to extend the benefit of pension under the Corporation of Calcutta Employees Death cum retirement Benefit Regulations, 1982 to them by the declaring the date, April 1, 1977, specified in Regulation I of the Chapter I of said Regulations as number est and void.
Later, that scheme appears to have been given up and the Provident Fund Scheme introduced Under the Provident Fund Scheme, a certain amount was deducted from the salary of the employees every month and credited to the Fund.
An equal amount was companytributed by the employer which too was credited to the Fund.
Since numberpension was proved for by the rules or regulations then in force they evidently did number claim and were number granted any pension.
The writ petitioners who had retired prior to April 1, 1977 and had drawn out the terminal benefits permissible to them, companystituted a different class from those who retired after April 1, 1977 and were governed by Regulations.
The State government appointed a Commission to examine the said demand and to recommend the necessary measures in that behalf.
The total amount to the credit of the employee in the Fund was paid to him on the date of his retirement.
The demand fell on receptive years in the year 1977.
On retirement, each of the writ petitioners were paid the provident fund in accordance with rules then in force.
April 1, 1977.
The three members submitted three different reports, differing with each other in certain particulars.
After processing the matter through relevant departments, the Regulations were issued and published in the year 1982.
The three members companystituting the Commission differed with each other in certain particulars.
On the basis of the demand of the Corporation employees for payment of pension, the Government of West Bengal appointed in March 1978, a Pay Commission to examine the said claim and to make their recommendation.
The High Court was of the opinion that all the retired employees of the Corporation companystituted one single class and classifying them into two categories with reference to April 1, 1977 is neither reasonable number is it in any manner related to the object of the Regulations.
Whatever terminal benefits were payable to them were paid.
The companyrectness of the said view is challenged in these appeals.
The prayer was granted as prayed for.
The Commission companysisted of three members.
On the basis of the said acceptance, the aforesaid regulations were framed and published in the year 1982.
The Regulations were accordingly given effect to.
Respondents 1 to 43 in both the appeals writ petitioners were the employees of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
The Government examined their recommendations and accepted them with certain modifications in the year 1981.
The High Court has mainly relied upon the decision of this Court in D.S. Nakara and Ors.
The Regulations provided inter alia that every employee who retired on or after April 1, 1977 can exercise the option in the prescribed perform within the time specified to companye under the Pension Scheme.
may be because in that year the Left Front Government came to power in that State, as suggested by the writ petitioners.
The said reports were examined by the Government and accepted with certain modifications on April 27, 1981.
The employee who retired on or after April 1, 1977 but prior to the date of publication of the Regulations were situated similarly to the writ petitioners.
2347 against the judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition.
But the Regulations created a distinction among them with reference to an artificial date viz.,
So far as persons retiring after the publication of the said Regulations were companycerned, They were automatically governed by the said Regulations Pension Scheme there was numberquestion of an option in their case.
The learned Counsel for the appellants, S Sri S.B. Sanyal and D.N. Mukherjee relied strongly upon the later decision of this Court in Krishena Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. ,
P. Jeevan Reddy, J. These two appeals are preferred by the State of West Bengal and the Calcutta Municipal Corporation respectively against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation F.M.A.T. No.
It submitted its report on September 27, 1979.
a decision of the Constitution Bench.
The Regulations were given effect to from April 1, 1977.
Since this was number done, the appellants must be held to have discriminated against the employees retiring prior to April 1, 1977.
The employees, however, were demanding the introduction of a pension scheme.
Those who retired earlier to the said date were made ineligible for the benefit of the Pension Scheme while those who retired on or after the said date were made eligible.
A mandamus was granted as prayed for, which was affirmed on appeal by the Division Bench.
It is submitted that the specification of April 1, 1977 as the date from which the Pension Scheme provided by 1982 Regulation was to companye into force was neither arbitrary number discriminatory.
A similar option, as has been given to the employees retiring on or after April 1, 1977 but before the date of publication of the Regulations, ought to have been given to all those employees who retired prior to April 1, 1977 but were alive on the said date.
