Employees who voluntarily opt out of a pension scheme and avail the benefits under an alternative scheme are not entitled to claim pension benefits later.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The respondent was employed as a Driver by the Delhi Transport Corporation on June 14, 1978 and while driving a bus on December 07, 1991 was involved in an accident. He was suspended on December 21, 1991. Departmental proceedings were initiated against him. For the accident in question an FIR was registered and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed. Pursuant to a voluntary retirement scheme notified in the year 1995, respondent’s request to be voluntarily retired from service was accepted and with effect from April 30, 1995 he stood voluntarily retired. Being a Member of a Contributory Provident Fund Scheme, respondent received the amount lying to his credit in his account under the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme; and needless to state this included the management’s share credited in the account each month along with the amount deducted towards respondent’s contribution. After seven years the respondent filed a writ petition on December 01, 2005 pleading that on November 27, 1992 DTC had introduced a pension scheme membership whereof was opted by the respondent and thus he should be paid the pension.

2. Vide impugned order dated December 01, 2005 the writ petition had been allowed directing DTC to pay to the respondent the admissible pension. The respondent has been directed to refund the employer’s contribution towards the Provident Fund Account which he had received.

3. In granting relief to the respondent the learned Single Judge has held that in view of the decision of this Court reported as 2005 (VII) AD 466 Satyavir Singh Vs. DTC the respondent was entitled to the relief prayed for.

4. The issue of entitlement of employees of DTC who opted for voluntary retirement under different voluntary retirement schemes notified by DTC have been resulting in conflicting opinions and the primary cause is an inapt handling of a few writ petitions which were not properly defended by the counsel appointed by DTC. The result was that in some cases claims by retired employees of DTC succeeded and in some relief was denied.

5. In the decision reported as 2010 (172) DLT 668 DTC Vs. Madhu Bhushan Anand, a Division Bench of this Court went into the issue in light of various decisions, for and against DTC. A finding of fact was returned with respect to the pension scheme notified on November 27, 1992; of it being a non-starter. The Division Bench considered the voluntary retirements schemes notified in the year 1993 and the year 1994 and highlighted that both schemes specifically excluded entitlement of those who sought voluntary retirement to join any pension scheme. The Division Bench noted that the pension scheme which was put into place by DTC was the date when the Central Government provided the necessary funds and the scheme came into effect on October 31, 1995 and thus only those who were in service and retire after November 01, 1995 would be entitled to pension.

6. In LPA No.708/2002 R.D. Gupta & Ors. Vs. DTC & Anr. the Full Bench perceived a manifest and irreconcilable conflict in the decisions rendered in LPA No.1262/2007 dated 5th October, 2007, Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Kishan Lal Sehgal & Ors. and 2010 (172) DLT 668 DTC vs. Madhu Bhushan Anand, and framed the following question to be answered by a Larger Bench:-

“What is the effect of receipt of payment including higher ex-gratia amount and employer’s share of provident fund to employees who had applied and opted for voluntary retirement under the VRS 1993, though the said employees were entitled to pension as per officer order No.16 dated 27th November, 1992?”

7. The reference was answered by the Full Bench on September 20, 2011 and the view taken by the Division Bench in Madhu Bhushan Anand’s case was found to be correct.

8. In answering the reference the Full Bench noted the origin of how the issue of payment of pension to employees of DTC arose and noted that the employees of DTC who were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Sche