ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Appellant’s Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No.2679 of 2005, decided on 13.5.2010, Appellant is before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.

3. The Appellant preferred the LPA against the judgment and order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi in Respondent’s Writ Petition (C) No.2962 of 2001 decided on 23.8.2005, whereby and whereunder Resopndent/employee of the Appellant has been held to be entitled for pensionary benefits.

4. The Respondent, an erstwhile employee of Appellant, claimed pensionary benefits to be granted to him under the provisions of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘Pension Rules’).

5. Learned Single Judge, after considering the Respondent’s Writ Petition, came to the conclusion that he would be entitled to receive the pension in accordance with Pension Rules and all arrears of pension from the date of filing the Writ Petition should be paid to him. This order was subject matter of challenge before the Division Bench of the High Court by filing LPA. Since it has also been dismissed, the employer Delhi Transport Corporation (hereinafter shall be referred to as ‘DTC’) is before us in Appeal.

6. Thumbnail sketch of the facts of the case are as follows :

7. Respondent was engaged as a Driver with the Appellant with effect from 13.4.1983. Appellant floated a Scheme known as Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short ‘V.R.S.’). Since Respondent had completed 10 years of service with D.T.C., he applied for voluntary retirement under it.

8. It is also the case of the Respondent that when the Pension Scheme was introduced by DTC, he had exercised the option as required under Clause (9) of the said Pension Scheme and had, therefore, become entitled to receive pension under the Pension Scheme.

9. Since Respondent had already completed 10 years of service and 40 years of age as well, for being qualified to be considered for V.R.S., the same was accepted by the Appellant. The eligibility criteria which finds place in Clause (2) of the V.R.S is reproduced hereinbelow :

"2. Eligibility : An employee must have completed ten years of service in this Corporation or completed 40 years of age to qualify for consideration under the Scheme. For this purpose, period of deputation/retention of lien in the parent office in lieu of deputation prior to absorption in the regular service of the Corporation will be excluded."

10. V.R.S. further postulates that it will be applicable to all regular employees of DTC that is to say workers and Executives who were appointed against regular vacancies in the Corporation.

11. Sub-clause (b) of Clause (3) mentions that voluntary retirement cannot be claimed by any employee as a matter of right. The Corporation will have the right not to grant voluntary retirement for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

12. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that Respondent had completed 10 years of service and had crossed the age of 40 years. Thus, D.T.C., in its wisdom, thought it fit to grant him the benefit of VRS. Subsequent thereto, whatever amounts were found due and payable to him, were paid accordingly. But pension, which according to the Respondent, he was entitled to, having not been paid, he approached the Appellant. Since Appellant refused to grant him pensionary benefits, Respondent was constrained to file a Writ Petition, purportedly under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, before learned Single Judge of the High Court at New Delhi.

13. On notice being served upon the D.T.C., it filed its Return/Counter Affidavit mentioning therein that no doubt it is true that Respondent had rendered 10 years of service and had also crossed the age of 40 years, thus, was granted V.R.S. but he would not be entitled to pensionary benefits as he had not completed 10 years of qualifyi