Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
1512/2010 on 31 January, 2011
Author: Pratap Kumar Ray
Bench: Pratap Kumar Ray
31.1.2011. M.A.T. No. 1512 of 2010
Mr. L.C. Behani
Mr. Dilip Kr. Chatterjee
.. for the appellants.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Mondal
.. for the respondent.
Re: C.A.N. No. 320 of 2011 (Stay) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
Assailing the order dated 8th September, 2010 passed by the learned Trial Judge in W.P. No. 15206 (W) of 2010, this appeal has been preferred by the Calcutta State Transport Corporation.
By the impugned order, learned Trial Judge directed grant of pensionary benefit under Death-cum-Retirement Regulations, 1990 to the writ petitioner. The Calcutta State Transport Corporation Employees (Death-cum- Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1990 though was introduced with effect from 1st April, 1984 but a condition has been stipulated about eligibility benefit under the said regulations in terms of Clause 2 (2) of the regulation that the concerned employee should be in the pay roll of Corporation as on 1st April, 1984 and also should remain in the pay roll till the actual 2 date of notification of the regulations in the official gazette.
It is an admitted position that the writ petitioner's husband breathed last on 3rd August, 1987. Hence, prima faice the said Clause 2(2) of regulation is not being satisfied to avail the benefit under the said regulation.
It is the contention of the appellant that under the earlier scheme, namely, C.S.T.C. Employees Contributory Provident Fund Regulation, gratuity and other benefits available to the deceased employee have been received by the writ petitioner.
It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent/writ petitioner that the Managing Director passed a decision granting benefit of pension in favour of the writ petitioner in terms of the said Regulations, 1990. But as no amount was released, the writ application was moved.
From the order of Managing Director, it appears that the gentleman relied upon release of identical benefit in favour of one Smt. Chaina Sarkar identically placed whose husband breathed last prior to notification of the regulations. The case of Smt. Chaina Sarkar whether is identical with reference to 3 the factual matrix of the case of the writ petitioner and if not whether the writ petitioner is entitled to get identical benefit applying Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which admittedly is not a negative concept but a positive concept whereby person concerned seeking identical relief is required to satisfy his/her legal right to have the benefit and thereafter to proceed in the aspect of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution of India are required to be dealt with. Hence we are of the view that the matter requires an adjudication in depth considering regulation and other material factors in appeal.
Having regard to such, prima faice we are of the view that there should be stay of the impugned judgement under appeal till final disposal of the appeal.
The stay application is accordingly allowed.
Since all parties are appearing before us, service of notice of appeal and other formalities stand dispensed with.
Let the appeal be heard as expeditiously as possible.
4
Let informal paper book be filed annexing all relevant documents as relied upon before the learned Trial Judge and before us.
Let informal paper book be served to the respondent/writ petitioner.
The matter will appear as a fixed item five weeks hence in the list for final disposal.
(Pratap Kumar Ray, J.) (Dr. Mrinal Kanti Chaudhuri, J.) sks.