Calcutta High Court turns down pension claim of retired SBSTC staff

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has refused to grant pension benefits to a group of retired employees of the South Bengal State Transport Corporation (SBSTC), holding that those who did not opt for the scheme at the relevant time cannot claim it years later.

A Division Bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas dismissed the appeal, upholding an earlier order of a single judge that had denied relief to the petitioners.

The court found that the petitioners had not exercised the mandatory option to come under the SBSTC Employees’ Pension Regulation, 2002, within the stipulated period. Instead, they accepted retirement benefits under the Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) scheme, including gratuity and continued to avail those benefits for years.

Describing the petitioners as “fence sitters”, the Bench noted that they remained silent while another group of employees pursued litigation over the same issue and approached the court only after those employees succeeded.

The judges pointed out that the petitioners moved the court nearly 12 years after the pension regulation came into force and between five and fifteen years after their retirement, rendering their claims hit by delay and laches.

Rejecting the argument that they were similarly placed as employees who had earlier secured a pension through court orders, the Bench clarified that the earlier ruling applied only to those who had exercised their option under

the 2002 regulation. It was not a judgment applicable to all employees. The court also declined the plea for parity with state government employees, observing that employees of statutory corporations cannot claim identical service conditions, including pensionary benefits, as a

matter of right.

Importantly, the Bench held that apart from the 2002 regulation—which the petitioners did not opt for—there was no enforceable pension scheme applicable to them.

Internal communications or recommendations regarding pension benefits, it said, do not create a legal right.

The Division Bench refused to interfere and dismissed the appeal, bringing the long-standing pension dispute to a close.