Back
High Court Of Delhi
SUDARSHAN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPOTATION - Respondent
Civil Writ 4833 of 1993
Decided On : 10/18/1994
PENSION - RETIREMENT - RESIGNATION - DISTINCTION - ARTIFICIAL - PENSION SCHEME - APPLICABILITY - RETROSPECTIVITY - EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 - CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES (PENSION) RULES, 1972 - RULE 26 - RULE 48.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of the respondent-corporation, resigned from service in 1986 after completing 33 years of service. He was denied the benefit of a pension scheme introduced in 1992, which was made available to employees who retired from service with effect from 3 August 1981. The petitioner challenged the denial of the pension, arguing that the distinction between retired and resigned employees was artificial and arbitrary.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the denial of the pension to the petitioner was arbitrary and unreasonable. It held that the petitioner, who had rendered qualifying years of service, was entitled to the benefit of the pension scheme, even though he had resigned from service rather than retired. The court interpreted the term "retired w. e. f. 3/08/1981" found in the pension scheme to include a person who resigned also w. e. f. 3/08/1981 after rendering qualifying years of service of 30 years.
Issues: Whether the distinction between retired and resigned employees for the purpose of granting pension benefits was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * Pension is not a bounty or a matter of grace, but a payment for past service rendered. * Pension is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who have served the employer for a long period of time. * The quantum of pension is correlated to the average emoluments drawn during the last three years of service. * Payment of pension is dependent upon an additional condition of impeccable behaviour even subsequent to retirement. * Pension can be reduced or withdrawn as a disciplinary measure.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent-corporation to extend the pension scheme to the petitioner.
( 1 ) PETITIONER seeks the following reliefs:
(A) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order ordirection calling for the records which led to the passing of theimpugned decision (Annexure P-2) and the scheme notified videannexure P-l, declining to grant relief to the petitioner and on aconsideration of the submissions made in the present petition, thesame be quashed. (b) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and certiorari orany other writ, order or direction quashing the decision contained inannexure P-2 rendered by the First Respondent. (c) Issue any other Writ, order or direction granting to the petitioner allother necessary and consequential reliefs, as are just and proper in thefacts and circumstances of the case.
( 2 ) IN substances the petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the benefit ofpension which was made available to those who retired from service w. e. f. 3. 8. 1981under a Scheme introduced by Office Order No. l6 dated 27/11/1992. Inother words, the retrospectivity given to the Scheme was confined to those whoretired only but not extended to those who resigned. An artificial distinction hasbeen made between the persons who retired and those who resigned at a time whenthere was no occasion for the concerned person to opt for retirement or seekretirement in the manner stated in Rule 48 of C. C. S. Pension Rules (for short therules ).
( 3 ) THE petitioner joined the first respondent as a Conductor in the year 1953. Thereafter he was promoted as a Junior Clerk and then as a Senior Clerk. Inseptember, 1975 he was removed from service and this removal was challenged bythe petitioner by raising an industrial dispute. In December 1984 the Labour Courtreinstated the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service afterquashing the order of removal. This was challenged by the respondent-Corporation by filing a writ petition 387 of 1986 but this Court rejected the writ petition inlimine on 20/02/1986.
( 4 ) IN the course of this prolonged litigation, according to the petitioner, hebecame ill and therefore he sent a letter for resignation on medical grounds inapril, 1986 (which was after his reinstatement ). The resignation was accepted on 12/09/1986. The petitioner had given the notice of three months asrequired. The petitioner admittedly had completed 33 years of service by that time. The petitioner also has produced sufficient material to show that due to medicalreasons he had to opt for resignation and seek retirement. The Rules referred abovewere not applicable to the employees of the first respondent-corporation duringthe relevant time and consequently there was no occasion for the petitioner topersuade the first respondent-corporation to retire him. On resignation thepetitioner was paid the then retirement benefits.
( 5 ) ON 27/11/1992 the Office Order No. l6 referred above wasnotified. This introduced a Pension Scheme for the employees of the first respondent-corporation as sanctioned by the Central Government. According to this the Pension Scheme was to be with effect from 3/08/1981. Clause 3 of thescheme which is relevant reads thus:all the existing employees including those retired w. e. f. 3. 8. 1981 onwardswould have the option to opt for the pension Scheme or the Employees Contributory Provident Fund as at present, within 30 days from the date of theissue of this Office Order for the implementation of the Pension Scheme asapproved by the Government of India. Clauses 6 and 7 which are also relevant read thus:
(6) The employees who have retired on or after 3/08/1981 and theexisting employees who have drawn the employer s share under the E. P. F. Act, partly or wholly shall have to refund the same with interest in the eventof their opting for the Pension Scheme, the total amount to be refunded by theretired employees/existing employees would be the amount that would haveaccrued, had they not withdrawn the employer s share.
(7) Excess amount of gratui
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
