Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment and order dated 6th July, 2001 by which the Ld. Judge disposed of four writ petitions including WP No. 2563 of 2000 and WP No. 1045 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and order, the Ld. Judge allowed all the four writ petitions. Appeal No. 145 of 2002 arises out of WP No. 2563 of 2000 and Appeal No. 149 of 2002 arises out of WP No. 1045 of 2001.
(2.) THE petitioner in WP No. 2563 of 2000 is a retired employee of the appellant. The petitioner in WP No. 1045 of 2001 is the wife of the retired employee of the appellant namely Ram Perit Jeswara, since deceased, who superannuated from service with effect from 1st April, 1986. The petitioner in WP No. 2563 of 2000 namely Trilok Singh retired from service on 30th September, 1984. The common grievance of the petitioners in the two writ petitions is that upon superannuation of the concerned employees, they were given the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. However, they were unaware of the Pension Scheme introduced by the appellant for its employees. It is their grievance that the Pension Scheme or the additional benefits accruing thereunder from time to time were not adequately publicized or circulated amongst the employees of the appellant who were kept in the dark about the benefits and advantages of the pension scheme and as such were prevented from opting for the same. The time to exercise the option in favour of the pension scheme was extended from time to time but the same was also not communicated to the concerned employees. They came to know of the pension scheme and the greater benefits thereunder compared to the contributory provident fund scheme much after the last cut off date for exercising option in favour of the pension scheme from other employees of the appellant. Had the appellant adequately publicised the pension scheme and the benefits thereunder, the concerned employees would have opted for the same. By not keeping the employees informed of such scheme, the appellant prevented the concerned employees from opting for the pension scheme. The appellant ought to allow the concerned employees to opt for the pension scheme without taking the plea of expiry of the last cut off date.
(3.) WITH the aforesaid allegations the petitioners in the said writ petitions approached this Court. The Ld. Judge disposed of the writ petitions by the impugned judgement and order. The operative portion of the judgment and order of the Ld. Single Judge is extracted hereunder: - "It is an admitted fact that the respondent authority did not inform the writ petitioners about the said circulars. The writ petitioners as such could not exercise their option as the said scheme was not known to them. The similar issue has been decided by this court in the case of Indra Bhusan Dutta -vs. -Calcutta Port Trust (WP No. 591 of 1996) wherein S.B. Sinha, J. (as His Lordship then was) by judgment and order dated 28th July, 1988 held that it was incumbent upon the Port Trust Authority to inform the concerned employees so that they could exercise their option within the time stipulated. In absence of such communication if the writ petitioner submitted his option beyond time he cannot be blamed therefor. The similar view has been taken by Aloke Chakaraborty, J. in the case of Amiya Ghosh -vs. -Calcutta Port (WP No. 42 of 2000). Mr. Chakraborty appearing for the Calcutta Port Trust in his usual fairness concedes that no appeal has been preferred from either of the said judgments. Ld. Counsel appearing for the writ petitioners submits that the said two orders have been implemented and those writ petitioners were given liberty to exercise their option belatedly. In my view, since the writ petitioners are in similar circumstances there is no reason why the Respondent would deny such opportunity. In the result the writ petitioners succeed. The options exercised by the writ petitioners must be considered by the Port Trust Authority in accordance with law and in accordance with the said scheme irrespective of the date of submission. It is further made clear that in case the writ petitioners are allowed to opt for the pension scheme by the Calcutta Port Trust Authority the writ petitioners will be bound by the terms of the scheme including refund or adjustment of the Provident Fund amount. It is expected that the Port Trust Authority will act expeditiously upon being served with the copy of the order.";