CALCUTTA PORT TRUST Vs ANADI KUMAR DAS (CAPT)
Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA,C. NAGAPPAN
Case number: C.A. No.-007148-007148 / 2008
Diary number: 13153 / 2007
Advocates: A. V. RANGAM Vs
KAILASH CHAND
Page 1
1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A. No. 7 of 2014 IN
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7148 OF 2008
CALCUTTA PORT TRUST & ORS. ………APPELLANTS
Vs.
ANADI KUMAR DAS (CAPT) & ANR. ………RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
V.GOPALA GOWDA, J.
This Interlocutory Application is filed by
the applicant-respondent for modifying the
operative part of the final judgment and order
dated 13.11.2013 passed by this Court in Civil
Appeal No. 7148 of 2008 directing the
appellants Calcutta Port Trust to disburse the
arrears of pension to the applicant-respondent
stating various facts mainly alleging that
despite the judgment and order dated
Page 2
2
13.11.2013, though this Court has ordered for
disbursement of pension to the claimant-
applicant, the Calcutta Port Trust has not
cleared the outstanding dues payable to him in
so far as he applied for pension to the
competent authority to come over to the
pension scheme by submitting an application on
23.07.2001 by switching over to the pension
scheme from CPF Scheme. Despite legal notice
dated 27.05.2014, the Calcutta Port Trust has
taken it to mean that the applicable date for
the purposes of disbursement of pension to the
respondent as he was permitted to exercise his
option by condoning the delay in submitting
his application is the judgment dated
13.11.2013, wherein this Court while setting
aside the impugned judgment and order
specifically directed the Calcutta Port Trust
to allow respondent to exercise option in
terms of Circular dated 19.02.1986 and as the
option has been allowed, expressly and
impliedly stands condoned.
Page 3
3
2. The said application is opposed by the
Calcutta Port Trust by filing a detailed
statement of counter traversing averments made
in the application and prayed for dismissal of
the application and mainly placed reliance
upon Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966.
3. We have heard the learned Attorney General
Mr. Mukul Rohtagi and Mr. Jayant Bhushan,
learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr. Ajay G. Majithia, learned
counsel for the applicant–respondent.
4. It is submitted by the learned Attorney
General that similarly placed petitions of 15
other writ petitioners are pending both before
this Court as well in the High Court of
Calcutta at various stages seeking condonation
of the belated option furnished to the
appellants to switch over to the pension
scheme from the CPF scheme. If the present
Page 4
4
application is allowed, all those similarly
placed officers/employees may also seek a
similar dispensation and if the same is
extended to the ex-employees or their
dependents, the yearly impact to the Calcutta
Port Trust would be in the range of Rs. 576.24
crores p.a. and the arrears payable from 1962
would be to the tune of Rs.10,191.22 crores.
They further contended that if the appellants
are required to pay the pension benefit as
claimed by the respondent by interfering the
operative portion of the order, the arrears
would have to be paid to him nearly about
Rs.25 lakhs. Further, the Calcutta Port Trust
is undergoing severe financial stress and
further placing strong reliance upon the
reasoning portion of the judgment dated
13.11.2013 particularly, the para 24 which
reads thus:
“In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order are set aside and the one passed by the learned
Page 5
5
single judge is restored.”
5. The relief granted in favour of the
applicant-respondent in the civil appeal
permitting him to exercise option in terms of
the Circular dated 19.02.1986 means that it is
a concession given having regard to the facts
of the case of the applicant and the benefit
was extended by this Court to exercise option
in terms of the circular referred to supra and
the arrears of pension with effect from
23.07.2001 as claimed by the claimant-
respondent. The Calcutta Port Trust is already
under financial losses and not in a position
to pay arrears in case similarly placed
retired officers and employees’ claims are
allowed by the Courts.
6. Though, we have to accept the legal
contentions raised by the learned Attorney
General and learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the appellant Calcutta Port Trust
that the application for seeking modification
Page 6
6
is not maintainable however, it would be
suffice for us to state that in the operative
portion of the order of this Court dated
13.11.2013, the respondent is permitted to
exercise the option of the pension scheme vide
circular dated 19.02.1986 and further
direction is given to the appellants that the
needful be done within two months from the
date of receipt of this order. The above said
operative portion of the order makes very
clear that the pensionary benefit under the
scheme shall be extended to the applicant-
respondent as per the circular dated
19.02.1986 and the same shall be continued to
be paid to him from 23.7.2001. The said order
of the court is clarified to that extent.
Further with regard to the submission made by
the learned Attorney General and the learned
senior counsel on behalf of the Port Trust
with regard to its financial position, it
would be suffice for this Court to direct the
appellant - Calcutta Port Trust to pay 75% of
Page 7
7
the arrears of pension under the scheme, from
23.7.2001 till the date of judgment, to the
applicant-respondent.
7. With the above said clarification and
directions to the appellants, this application
is disposed of. This clarification order is
confined to the facts of this case.
……………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]
……………………………………………………………J. [C. NAGAPPAN]
New Delhi, November 24, 2014