Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Barid Baran Bose vs Calcutta State Transport Corporation & ... on 3 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
The Hon'ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad
And
The Hon'ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
FMA 647 of 2023
Barid Baran Bose
Vs.
Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors.
For the Appellant : Ms. Sujatna Mukherjee
For the CSTC` : Mr. Amal Kumar Sen
Mr. Sabyasachi Mondal
Judgment on : December 3, 2025
Madhuresh Prasad, J.:
1. The writ petitioner is the appellant in the present proceedings aggrieved by an order dated 25.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. 13207(W) of 2014 whereby and whereunder the writ petition was dismissed.
2. The appellant claims that he retired from service of the respondent Calcutta State Transport Corporation (CSTC for short), while working as a Charge Hand - II (Motor Mechanic). The petitioner sought the following relief:
"a) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their subordinates to release full pension under the Death cum Retirement Benefits scheme. 1990 and also to release the entire retirement benefits with interest in favour of the petitioner forthwith without taking the Letter dated 24.3.10.
Calcutta High Court FMA 647 of 2023 dt 03.12.2025.
b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their subordinates to release the leave salary with interest in favour of the petitioner;
c) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents and/or their subordinates to release the ad-hoc amount in respect of pension and other retrial benefits till finalized the pension and also to calculate properly in respect of leave salary and the same should be paid with interest to the petitioner;
d) A writ in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to produce the records connecting this case so that conscionable justice may be done;
e) Rule NISI in terms of prayer (a), (b) and (c);
f) Ad-interim order directing the respondents and/or their subordinates to release the pension and other retirement benefits including leave salary with interest in favour of the petitioner forthwith and/or to pass such other or further order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper;"
3. It is not in dispute that for receiving the benefits claimed in the writ proceeding there was a requirement as per circular dated 06.05.1991, to exercise an option for being governed under the Death-cum-Retirement Benefits Scheme 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "DCRB").
4. The petitioner retired on 30.06.2006. He was paid leave salary and gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 at the time of his retirement. Relying upon a resolution dated 11.10.2000, the writ petition has been filed in the year 2014; about eight years after appellant retired (30.06.2006) from service, raising a claim for grant of benefit under DCRB.
5. In the appeal relief is claimed on an adverse presumption arising from the fact that the authorities have not shown the concerned register maintained in the establishment wherein the name and details of employees who submitted their option for DCRB benefits was maintained. The petitioner/ appellant relies upon 2 Calcutta High Court FMA 647 of 2023 dt 03.12.2025.
a text of the discussion of a meeting held on 29.09.2000 between the Chairman, Managing Director and CAO cum FA of the CSTC. He submits that it is apparent from a perusal of the same that the option form submitted by the petitioner for exercising his option for grant of pension under the DCRB was misplaced by the authorities. It is submitted that the 1991 circular did not contain any condition for acknowledgement of submission of option form. The authorities have failed to show the register maintained in the appellant's establishment in the offices and depots, which were required to be consulted to ascertain the petitioner's claim. Since the register of the concerned office was not shown to the petitioner an adverse presumption arises in his favour that he had submitted an option for benefit of DCRB.
6. The learned Advocate has relied on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pradip Buragohain vs. Pranati Phukan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 108. He has also relied upon decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Angshuman Mandal vs. State of West Bengal and Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 171. The learned Advocate submits that in the circumstances the Court should presume submission of an option for conversion to the benefit of DCRB; and direct for payment of benefits of DCRB to the appellant. The order of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is, therefore, unsustainable.
7. Mr. Sen, learned Advocate representing the CSTC submits that the petitioner was required to substantiate his claim for the benefit of DCRB giving details of the option submitted by him for such benefit as per the Scheme of 1990 which contemplated submission of options. Even after 1990 opportunity was granted to the employees to submit options for grant of benefit of DCRB under a Circular dated 09.04.2002.
3Calcutta High Court FMA 647 of 2023 dt 03.12.2025.
8. The appellant never submitted any option till his retirement in the year 2006.
Even thereafter, and at least till 14.10.2009 the petitioner was claiming the benefit of pension under a different scheme of 1995 namely EPS-1995, and not DCRB. He has submitted an appeal for grant of pensionary benefits under EPS- 1995 on 14.10.2009, which claim was rejected by the respondents on 24.03.2010. The petitioner did not raise any claim for DCRB either at the time of his retirement in 2006, nor he raised any such claim prior to filing of the writ petition, i.e. for eight years after his retirement. In fact, at the time of his retirement he has availed the benefit of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act and earned leave, as if he had never exercised any option either for benefit under the EPS-1995 or DCRB 1990.
9. We find that the claim for benefit of DCRB has been agitated for the first time by filing a writ petition, eight years after his retirement. Keeping in view this factual background there is no occasion for the petitioner to rely on any adverse presumption. The resolution dated 28.09.2000 was taken since an issue has arisen in the year 2000, six years prior to petitioner's retirement, regarding disbursement of pension on the basis of revised consent. Even after this resolution the petitioner did not raise any claim for grant of DCRB benefits before the authorities till his retirement.
10. In the writ proceeding also no such adverse presumption was claimed. It is only in this intra court appeal, after availing permission from this Court as per order dated 20.09.2024, that the petitioner sought leave to inspect the registers maintained in his office. Leave was sought, 24 years after the resolution was passed in the year 2000. We also find that up until 2009-2010 the petitioner was pursuing claims under the EPS-1995. If the appellant had ever exercised any 4 Calcutta High Court FMA 647 of 2023 dt 03.12.2025.
option for benefit of DCRB, surely he would have raised a claim in this regard either at the time of his retirement in 2006, or when he was representing to the authorities after his retirement. At no such stage the claim for DCRB was raised which is apparent from the petitioner's appeal dated 14.10.2009, for grant of benefit of EPS scheme.
11. Since no option was submitted for DCRB, it is obvious that he also did not make any contribution for grant of such benefits. We found that petitioner has received the entire amount to which he is entitled under the heading EPF and dues under the Payment of Gratuity Act. He has also received the entitlement under the head leave salary along with interest. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate his claim for grant of benefit of DCRB.
12. In so far as the decision of the apex Court in the case of Pradip Buragohain (supra) and decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Angshuman Mandal (supra) relied upon by the present appellant, we find that the same have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
13. In the case of Pradip Buragohain (supra) the issue which arose for consideration was whether any incident of corrupt practice in the course of an election was reported to the appellant. The appellant claimed that such incident was reported to him but could not produce the claim regarding corrupt practices to substantiate its own claim. It was in such circumstance that the apex Court referred to illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. That non- production of the document by the appellant, on which the appellant itself was placing reliance gives rise to an adverse inference against the appellant that no such complain was made or that there was no charge of corrupt practice being resorted to against the respondent.
5Calcutta High Court FMA 647 of 2023 dt 03.12.2025.
14. The facts in the present case are essentially different as noted above. The Circular date 06.05.1997 provided for submission of option form for availing benefits of DCRB. The petitioner did not claim submission of any option form under the regulation till his retirement on 30.06.2006. The petitioner received the benefit of Gratuity and earned leave as if he never exercised any option for grant of benefits under DCRB. More than three years after his retirement he represented to the authorities for grant of benefits under a different pension scheme, namely EPS-95. It is only in the year 2014, that is 8 years after he retired that he has raised a plea of adverse inference founded on the text of discussion dated 11/16-10-2000.
15. It is apparent from the facts noted above that prior to 2014 there is no demand on the part of the petitioners at any point of time regarding petitioner having submitted his option form, let alone there being any acceptance of such fact by the authorities. We also find that the respondent had again issued Circular dated 09.04.2002 inviting option for benefit of DCRB. Even at this stage the petitioner raised no claim that he had submitted any option form prior thereto, so as to avail the benefit of later Circular dated 09.04.2002.
16. The facts as they are, leave no scope for the petitioner to claim benefit of pension by resorting to a plea of adverse inference.
17. In the other judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Angshuman Mandal (supra) the issue arising for consideration was whether the appellant gained an undue advantage while obtaining admission in the training by producing fake marksheet. It was the claim of the respondent that fake marksheet was submitted by the appellant. Hoverer, the respondents did not produce the application form to substantiate their own claim that copy of the 6 Calcutta High Court FMA 647 of 2023 dt 03.12.2025.
fake mark sheet was allegedly annexed with application form. Since the original was not produced by the respondent, the coordinate Bench refused to accept the case of the respondent that an attestation was done by the Principal relying upon a fake marksheet wherein the appellant claimed 659 marks in the School Final Examination. Thus, decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case Angshuman Mandal (supra) also has no application to the present case wherein as noted above the petitioner never asserted any claim of submitting option form, either while in service or till 8 years thereafter. He did not raise any claim of adverse inference for at least 14 years after the text of discussion dated 11/16-10-2000 was issued.
18. In so far as the decision of the apex Court in the case Pradip Burgagohain (Supra) and a decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Angshuman Mandal (Supra) relied upon by the present appellant, though the same lay down undeniable and binding proposition of law, but the present case is factually distinguishable from the two judgments. Therefore, the two judgments have no bearing on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
19. The facts of the present case in our considered opinion is covered by decision of the apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala v. Amandeep Singh and Ors reported in (2017) 2 SCC 766. in para 25 of the said judgment the apex Court held:
"25............. From the facts of the present case, it is clear that although the Regulations were in force from 1992, the plaintiff retired on 30-11-2011 and after retirement received CPF benefits without any protest and at no point of time before retirement he has raised any grievance. The benefit which was available to him under the CPF Scheme was received by the plaintiff, he cannot be allowed to have another benefit flowing from the pension scheme which he never opted. Extending benefit of the pension scheme to the plaintiff shall be extending double benefits- CPF benefit as 7 Calcutta High Court FMA 647 of 2023 dt 03.12.2025.
well as pension scheme which was never contemplated by the Regulations.........."
20. We therefore, find no merit in the appeal requiring interference with the order passed by the Single Judge Bench.
21. The appeal is dismissed.
22. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.) I agree.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.) 8