DEBASISH KAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) This writ application is directed against an order dated September 21, 2011 passed by the respondent no.2 rejecting the claim of the petitioners to extend the benefit of family pension in their favour in connection with their services under the Kolkata Improvement Tribunal.
(2.) The petitioners are erstwhile employees of Kolkata Improvement Tribunal. They are covered under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme like employees of other similarly circumstanced organization. They are intended to enjoy the benefit of family pension under the Death-Cum-Retirement Benefit Scheme. Since their claim was not considered by the State Government an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was moved by one of the retired employees of the Kolkata Improvement Tribunal.
(3.) The above writ application in the matter of Shyamal Sankar Chakraborty v. State and Ors. (In re: W.P. No. 23786(W) of 2005) was disposed of by an order dated January 28, 2011 with a direction upon the respondent no.2 to consider the claim of the petitioners. In compliance with the above order the respondent no.2 passed the impugned order. The relevant portion of the impugned order is quoted below : "I obtained information from Group-P of Finance Department. It is informed that they are many statutory bodies, boards and undertakings who are at present covered by CPF Scheme and many of them have moved the Finance Department to allow them to convert into GPF and pension scheme. If we are to introduce pension in respect of all such bodies then it will be next to impossible for the government to bear the resultant burden. I find that there is no clear cut policy as to who will get CPF and who may be allowed to convert from CPF to GPF. Most of the organizations who are under CPF Scheme are governed by their respective statues. I think a policy decision is to be taken to address the whole situation in a logical way. For the time being, I am unable to recommend introduction of pension scheme to the employees of KIT Tribunal. The petitioner already retired from service in 2004 after attaining 60 years and he has received all his retiring benefits. So in so far as the statutory provision is concerned the petitioner has suffered in any manner. I therefore, conclude with the remarks that the prayer of the petitioner has been considered by me and rejected.";