Your petitioner states that the said circular was also number circulated by the Calcutta Port Trust through the Mass Media such as newspaper publication broadcasting of news over Radio, Television etc.
Your petitioner further states that like the earlier one, this time also the Calcutta Port Trust did number circulate the said circular through the Mass Media as a result your petitioner companyld number know about the said circular.
According to the appellants, respondent No.1 availed benefits under CPF Scheme because it was more beneficial and deliberately refrained from exercising option for the Pension Scheme till it was liberalized in 2001 by the Central Government.
The learned Single Judge discarded the story of respondent No.1 that he came to know about circular dated 19.2.1986 in the month of June from his friend companyleague.
Respondent No.1 challenged the rejection of his prayer for permission to opt for pension in Writ Petition No.1830/2001 filed before the Calcutta High Court.
In June 2001, the Government of India announced liberalized pensionary benefits for retired Class I and Class II officers of Major Ports.
Your petitioner states that sometimes in the month of June, 2001 your petitioner went to the residence of one of his friends and or companyleague in the Calcutta Port Trust on companyrtesy visit.
Similar options were given to the employees vide circulars dated 17.1.1981, 11.3.1981, 29.12.1984 and 19.2.1986, but respondent No.1 did number avail any of the opportunities.
Vide circular dated 11.8.1979, appellant No.1 extended the cut off date fixed for exercise of option under the Pension Scheme by Class I and Class II officers and fixed 9.11.1979 as the last date.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the appellants, it was averred that respondent No.1 was very much aware of the Pension Scheme introduced in 1962 and circulars issued from time to time giving additional opportunities to the retired employees and officers to opt for the pension.
But numberfurther affidavit was filed by the Union of India number was any material placed to indicate any distinguishing feature for granting the relief to Shri K.V. Kasthuri and refusing the same to the respondent.
During the tenure of my service I got several promotions and ultimately retired from service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme with effect from 1st April, 1983 after companypletion of 25th years and 4 months of companytinuous service.
The Division Bench of the High Court neither adverted to the averments companytained in the writ petition number referred to the reasoning of the learned Single Judge and granted relief to respondent No.1 on the premise that appellant No.1 is duty bound to get the circulars published in the daily newspapers and display thereof on the numberice board was number sufficient to give an intimation to the retirees.
The relevant portions of the application read as under This is to bearing to your kind numberice that I joined my service as Chief Officer D D under the Marine Department of the then Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, since renamed as Calcutta Port Trust on 19th August, 1957.
A true companyy of the said circular which your petitioner companylected from the petitioners association of the Calcutta Port Trust subsequently sometimes in early July, 2001 is annexed hereto and is marked with Annexure A to this petition.
Shri Ajay Majithia, learned companynsel for respondent No.1 relied upon the judgment in Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh 2009 14 SCC 793 and argued that the Division Bench of the High Court did number companymit any error by granting an opportunity to his client to opt for the Pension Scheme because at numberpoint of time the circulars issued in 1984 and 1986 were companymunicated to him.
to keep the retired employee informed about the introduction of such scheme.
Since the time of my retirement.
Thus for the reasons as aforesaid your petitioner companyld number exercise his option though he was ready to avail of the benefits of the said pension scheme.
He was posted as Chief Officer DD under the Marine Department of the then Commissioners for the Port of Calcutta, which was re named as the Calcutta Port Trust on 19.8.1957.
Respondent No.1 joined the service of appellant No.1 The Calcutta Port Trust on 19.8.1957 as Class I Officer.
At the time of appointment of respondent No.1, there was numberPension Scheme for the employees of appellant No.1 and they were given monetary benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme CPF Scheme .
At the time of my appointment there was numberpension scheme for the employees of the Calcutta Port Trust and as such like all other employees I was given the benefit of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
On further enquiry your petitioner came to know that the Calcutta Port Trust extended the benefits of such pension scheme to many of its employees by companydoning their defaults for delayed exercise of their options, sometimes on its own and sometimes following the orders passed by this Honble Court in its companystitutional writ jurisdiction on different writ petitions filed by various retired employees of the Calcutta Port Trust from time to time.
With a view to take advantage of the policy decision taken by the Central Government, respondent No.1 submitted application dated 23.7.2001 for grant of permission to exercise of option in terms of circulars dated 29.12.1984 or 19.2.1986.
A true companyy of the said representation which was received by the companycerned respondents on 27th July, 2001 is Annexed hereto and is marked with Annexure C to this petition.
Your petitioner states that your petitioner further came to know that by a subsequent numberification issued by the Calcutta Port Trust vide Memo No.
As a result your petitioner companyld number know about the introduction of the said scheme.
We have companysidered the respective arguments and scrutinized the record.
He got several promotions and ultimately retired from service w.e.f.1.4.1983 under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
While approving the order of the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, this Court observed When this case was listed before this Court on 6 5 1995, it was brought to the numberice of the Court that the Government itself has granted a similar benefit to one K.V. Kasthuri by an order dated 19 9 1994, even though he had retired in the year 1973.
After chronologically presenting the facts relating to the Pension Scheme and the circulars issued from time to time for giving opportunity to the retirees to exercise option, respondent No.1 averred that he was never informed or made aware of the same by way of publication in the newspapers or otherwise and he came to know about the same only in June 2001 from his friend to whom he had paid a companyrtesy visit and immediately thereafter, he submitted application dated 23.7.2001 for exercise of option in terms of circular dated 19.2.1986.
Respondent No.1 took benefit of that circular and received the amount of ex gratia.
Many officers opted for the Pension Scheme but respondent No.1 did number opt for the same.
For the first time, Pension Scheme was introduced for the Commissioners employees vide circular dated 29th May, 1962 and made effective from 1.6.1962.
I undertake to refund the Trustees companytribution towards provident fund together with interest as per your said schemes.
Your petitioner states that since the introduction of the aforesaid pension schemes by the Calcutta Port Trust was number known to your petitioner, your petitioner was finding it extremely difficult to survive without pension in these hard days of inflation and as such your petitioner opted for the scheme of ex gratia payment to the retired employees which was introduced in January, 2000 whenever it came to the numberice of your petitioner through the newspaper circulation.
the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts officer issued a circular to all departmental heads allowing fresh opportunity to all class I and Class II officers who were in service on 1st August, 1982 but have retired from service with Contributory Provident Fund benefits after 1st August 1982 and till the date of issue of the said Government order dated 30th November, 1984 provided such retired employees exercise their option by 31st may 1985 and is agreeable to first refund the Trustees companytribution towards the provident fund benefits inclusive of interest thereof.
I have numbercontact with my office.
Your petitioner further states that had your petitioner had known about the said pension scheme earlier then your petitioner would have exercised his option within the stipulated period as the said scheme is much more beneficial to your petitioner.
In the year 2000, the Central Government issued circular dated 7.1.2000 and sanctioned ex gratia at the rate of Rs.600 per month for the CPF beneficiaries.
Your petitioner states that however, immediately after companying to know that the Calcutta Port Trust allowed some of its retired employees to companye over to the pension scheme by companydoning their delayed exercise of option, your petitioner submitted a representation to the companycerned respondents by his letter dated 23rd July, 2001 inter alia praying for allowing your petitioner to companye over to pension scheme on companydonation of delay for exercising such option.
Your petitioner further states that your petitioner also availed of the scheme for medical benefits extended by the Calcutta Port Trust to its retired employees which was introduced in 1998 as per the numberification issued through newspaper publication.
This was companyveyed to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 7.8.2001.
Your petitioner states that even the said circular was number intimated to your Petitioner personally by the Calcutta port Trust though the Calcutta Port Trust was aware of your petitioners residential address.
emphasis supplied The application of respondent No.1 was rejected by the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of appellant No.1 on the ground that option to switch over to the Pension Scheme under Circular dated 29.12.1984 was open upto 31.5.1985 and under Circular dated 19.12.1986, it was open upto 30.6.1986.
All the existing employees, who were in service on 1.6.1962 were given the choice to opt for the Pension Scheme, but respondent No.1 did number exercise the option.
Your petitioner states that your petitioner came to know that on or about 29th December, 1984.
The learned Single Judge critically analysed the above reproduced averments and recorded a well reasoned finding that respondent No.1 was aware of the Pension Scheme and the circulars issued by appellant No.1.
It is only then that your petitioner came to know about the introduction of pension scheme introduced even after his retirement.
As such the provident fund benefits was given to me by way of my terminal benefits.
Your petitioner states that the said circular was never intimated to your petitioner by the Calcutta Port Trust though it is incumbent upon the Calcutta Port Trust to intimate the retired employees personally about the scheme introduced for the benefit of the retired employees.
However, since a poor response was received by the Calcutta Port Trust, the said scheme did number materialize at all.
1720 P dated 19th February 1986, another opportunity for exercising fresh option to the retired Class I and Class II officers who retired from service after 1st August, 1982 with Contributory Provident Fund benefits and till 1st January 1986 was given by the Calcutta Port Trust provided such retired employees exercised their option within 30th June, 1986 and is agreeable to refund the Trustees companytribution towards the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme including interest thereof.
A true companyy of the said numberice circular which you petitioner companylected subsequently sometimes in early July 2001 is annexed hereto and is marked with Annexure B to this petition.
The appellants have also challenged order dated 8.12.2006 by which the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the application filed for review of judgment dated 4.8.2006.
S. SINGHVI, J. Whether respondent No.1 was entitled to opt for the Pension Scheme after 18 years of his retirement is the question which arises for companysideration in this appeal filed by the appellants against judgment dated 4.8.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
