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

1997 Supreme(Del) 785

High Court Of Delhi
JAGPAL SINGH - Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION - Respondent
Civil 4216 of 1996
Decided On : 09/19/1997

Advocates Appeared:
B.S.Charya, R.P.GUPTA

Headnote:Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 48 and 49 — Qualifying service — Pensionary benefits — DTC offered Voluntary Retirement Scheme — Golden hand shake — Eligibility for — Petitioner applied retirement pensionary benefits denied — Writ petition under Article 226 — Constitution of India — Entitled to proportionate and pro-rata pension — After qualifying service of 10 years or more — Writ petition allowed.

       Held:

       Petitioners lost their jobs and the perks going with that and yet not paid their lawful dues, it is nothing but a case of malafide on the part of the respondent. It was not a normal retirement, DTC only wanted to get rid of its employees, hence, offered the scheme with certain benefits specified in para No. 4 of the scheme dated 3.3.93. Petitioner and the like opted for the same and now after having obtained their option, DTC cannot be allowed to deprived them from the benefits on the basis of which their voluntary retirement was accepted. The DTC cannot be allowed to build up an argument which is contrary to its own scheme.

USHA MEHRA

( 1 ) IN all these writ petitions since a common question of law is involved, therefore, they are taken up together and disposed of by one order.

( 2 ) THE principal questions of law raised in these petitions are:

1. What should be the qualifying service for eligibility of pension, particularly when this condition was not laid down in the pension scheme made applicable to the employees of the respondent? 2. Whether after having had the petitioners to seek voluntary retirement, the respondent can withdraw any of the benefit in this case ex-gratia payment in case pension is granted to the petitioners. 3. Whether those petitioners who did not opt within 30 days are barred from claiming the pension? Whether the employees who stood superannuated prior to November, 1992 but after August, 1981 are not entitled to opt for pension?

( 3 ) IN order to appreciate and dispose of the above points raised let us understand relevant facts and the rules on the point which are necessary for the determination of these questions.

( 4 ) S/shri Baij Nath Bhargava joined the respondent as conductor on 21st September, 1955. He retired on 31st May, 1994. (2) Kartar Singh joined as Driver in 1957 and thereafter worked as Vehicle Examiner. He sought voluntary retirement under the Scheme w. e. f. 31 st October, 1986. (3) Jang Singh joined Driver in 1972. He applied under the scheme for voluntary retirement on 30th March, 1993 and stood retired w. e. f. 31st May, 1993. (4) Gopal Krishan Nanda joined as Assistant Store- keeper on 15t March, 1962. In 1991 he was promoted as Chief Store-keepar. He applied under the voluntary retirement scheme on 18th March, 1993 and stood received from duties w. e. f. 31st May, 1993. (5) Kaliram joined as Driver on 28th February, 1957 and stood superannuated in normal course on 30th November, 1982. (6) Ishwar Singh joined DTC as Conductor on 23rd May, 1977. He applied under the voluntary retirement scheme and stood retired w. e. f. 31st May, 1993. (7) Jagat Parkash Singh joined as Conductor on 9th May, 1983. He applied for voluntary retirement under the Scheme and stood retired on 31st July, 1993. (8) Jagpal Singh was appointed as Driver in 1980. He appeal for the voluntary retirement under the scheme on 26th March, 1993. On 28th April, 1993 he made representation for withdrawing his application for voluntary retirement. Inspite of his withdrawl of option, the respondent retired him on the basis of withdrawl option w. e. f. 31st March, 1993.

( 5 ) FROM the above facts it is clear that so far as S/shri Kaliram, Gopal Krishan Nanda, Jang Singh, Kartar Singh and B. N Bhargava are concerned they had completed more than 20 years service before applying for voluntary retirement the condition of the respondent that since the petitioners were no having 20 years qualifying service, therefore, not entitled to pension is devoid of merits petitioners, namely, G. K. Nanda, B. N. Bhargava had more than 30 years Service, Kartar Singh had more than 29 years service, Kali Ram and Jang Singh had more than 20 years service. So far as other petitioners are concerned, they had more than ten years qualifying service at the time they applied under the voluntary retirement scheme. Therefore, the question for consideration is what qualifying service was required to make them eligible for the pension after they had been adhered to seek voluntary retirement.

( 6 ) THAT the voluntary retirement scheme as issued by the respondent was to be applicable to those of the employees who had completed 1 years of service or were 40 years old. On completion of 10 years or 40 years such an employee could opt for voluntary retirement. So far as seeking voluntary retirement after completing ten years service, there is no quarrel with this proposition. The question is not the eligibility to voluntary retirement scheme but the qualifying service required to make the employee eligible for pension. The eligibility criteria for failing order the voluntary retireme















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top