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