IMPORTANT POINT
Court cannot pass an order contrary to specific provisions.

Headnote:Service law – VRS – Pensionary benefit – Appellants opting for VRS – Terms of VRS specifically denying pension to such employees – Appellants not entitled for pension. (Para 3, 4)
       Facts of the case:
       Appellants opting for VRS. Terms and conditions of VRS specifically denying pension to employees opting for VRS.
       High Court directed payment of pension to the appellant.
       Finding of the Court:
       Impugned order is not tenable.
       Result:
       Appeal allowed.

ORDER

This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 06th November, 2001. It appears that there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS') in the Delhi Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation', in 1993 which contained a provision for pension. The respondent herein did not apply under that VRS Scheme.

Subsequently, the Corporation framed a new Scheme dated 13.12.1995 in which it was specifically stated that those employees who opt for VRS under the new Scheme will not get pension. Respondent, admittedly, applied under this scheme.

Since, there was a specific provision in the VRS Scheme dated 13.12.1995, we fail to see how the High Court has held that the respondent will get pension in addition to VRS benefits.

In view of above, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and it is hereby set aside.

The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to costs. Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals has stated that in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 12th March, 2007 passed in Special Leave Petition(C)No.4135 of 2007, these appeals may be dismissed. We order accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 1783

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, JJ.DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION - AppellantVERSUSMOOL CHAND - RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7258 OF 2002Decided on : 02/12/2008

IMPORTANT POINTCourt cannot pass an order contrary to specific provisions.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AFTAB ALAM, JJ.
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Appellant
VERSUS
MOOL CHAND - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 7258 OF 2002
Decided on : 02/12/2008

IMPORTANT POINT
Court cannot pass an order contrary to specific provisions.