SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1120

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
D.T.C. - Appellant
Versus
Balwan Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014
Decided On : 09-11-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Dr. Monika Gusain, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat
For the Respondents: Mr. Narottam Vyas, Mr. S.C. Varma, Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar

Adverse consequences should not be imposed on an employee's right to receive pension without proper notice.

Headnote:PENSION - Qualifying Service - Delhi Transport Corporation - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 - F.R.17-A of the Fundamental Rules - Rules 27 & 28 of the Pension Rules - Rules of Natural Justice The court is considering an appeal by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) regarding the inclusion of a period of leave without pay in the qualifying service for pension under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The appellant argues that leave without pay should be treated as unauthorised absence and not countable towards qualifying service. The Delhi High Court had previously held that unless the employee is given notice that the period of absence will dis-entitle them to pension benefits, it cannot be excluded from qualifying service. The appellant relies on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of "DTC vs. Lillu Ram" which treated leave without pay as unauthorised absence. However, the court finds that the judgment in the Lillu Ram case did not consider the relevant rules or provide reasons for treating leave without pay as unauthorised absence. The court opines that adverse consequences should not be imposed on an employee's right to receive pension without proper notice. It suggests that Rules of Natural Justice may apply in situations where unauthorised absence is recorded, affecting the length of qualifying service for pension. The court concludes that the Lillu Ram case requires reconsideration by a larger bench and recommends bringing the matter to the attention of the Chief Justice of India. Due to the interim orders, the court emphasizes the need for an expedited hearing.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal involves the question of whether the period of leave without pay should be included in the qualifying service for pension under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme.

Finding of the Court:

The court finds that adverse consequences should not be imposed on an employee's right to receive pension without proper notice.

Ratio Decidendi:

The court suggests that Rules of Natural Justice may apply in situations where unauthorised absence is recorded, affecting the length of qualifying service for pension. Final Decision: The court recommends reconsideration of the judgment in the Lillu Ram case by a larger bench and calls for an expedited hearing.

ORDER :

This appeal is preferred by the employer-Delhi Transport Corporation (in short 'the DTC') against some employees who were permitted to retire under Voluntary Retirement Scheme (in short 'the VRS')and involves a simple question as to whether for the purposes of pension their qualifying service of ten years will include the period in which they were treated to be on leave without pay.

2. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the period of leave without pay must be treated in law to be equivalent to unauthorised absence from duty and hence not countable towards qualifying service. In the impugned judgment of Delhi High Court rendered on 13th October, 2011 reliance has been placed upon several judgments of the High Court wherein a categorical view was taken that unless the employee is given a notice by entry into the service book or otherwise that he is guilty of unauthorised absence, the period of absence accepted as leave without pay cannot be treated as unauthorised absence and cannot be excluded from the qualifying service for want of notice to the employee directly or indirectly conveying that such period of absence will dis-entitle him to any benefits like pension etc. beyond the salary.

3. On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of “DTC vs. Lillu Ram which was rendered on 14th December, 2011 passed in C.A. No. 11440 of 2011. Aslthough the said judgment proceeds on the factual premise that the employee had been absent unauthotisedly for a long period of 486 days on the basis of service book produced before the Court and perused by it, according to learned counsel for the appellant, there was no specific entry in the service book of Lillu Ram that he was unauthorisedly absent, rather this Court treated 486 days of leave without pay to be unauthorised absence and held that such days of absence will not be counted towards qualifying service. We were shown photo copy of service book of Lallu Ram in support of the aforesaid submission.

4. The judgment in the case of Lallu Ram (supra) rendered by a Division Bench does not show any consideration or reasons as to why when factually the employee had been sanctioned leave without pay, such period was treated by this Court to be a period of unauthorised absence. Even the relevant rules such as Rules 27 & 28 of the Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 or F.R.17-A of the Fundamental Rules on which reliance has been placed by the respondents was not noticed or considered.

5. Prima facie, we are of the view that no adverse effect can be permitted upon the right of the employee to receive pension unless he was given notice by appropriate entry in the service book or through other notice that his absence will be treated as unauthorised absence and will not be counted towards qualifying service for pension. In absence of such notice, after the respondent-employee has taken voluntary retirement under VRS and that too on the ground that he has completed ten years of service, it may be unjust and very harsh to inflict him with such adverse consequences. No doubt in sub rule (2) of Rule 28 of the Pension Rules which relates to condonation of interruption of service, an opportunity of representation is required to be given to the employee before making entry in service book regarding forfeiture of past service only, but there appears to be some substance in the submission that Rules of Natural Justice may be attracted even in other similar situation where the entry is regarding unauthorised absence, if it is to have the effect of break in service adversely affecting the length of qualifying service for pension.

6. In our considered view, the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in case of Lillu Ram (supra) requires re-consideration by a larger Bench. For that purpose, the matter may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India.

7. Since the respondent-employee, as per interim orders are getting only

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top