Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, Talwant Singh, JJ.
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Nizam Elahi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 3984 of 2021, CM Nos. 12053 of 2021 & 12055 of 2021
Decided On : 28-10-2021
Limitation Act 1963 – Section 22, 23 - Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – Rules 26,26(7),29,36,37,37 (1),(3), 38, 48,48A,48(3)A(a), 48A(6),49,49(2),56, -Societies Registration Act, 1860 – Constitution of India 1950 –Articles 19(1)(f), 19(5), 32, 31(1)- Civil Service Regulations - Article 459 - Post of Assistant Teacher- Pro-rata retiral benefits - Pension - SCERT had failed to deposit on behalf of respondent no.1, his leave salary and pension grant certificate, within two years, as stipulated. Although stipulated two years ended since respondent no.1's two-year lien was approved, SCERT moved in this direction after nearly 20 years -Since respondent no.1 had not exercised his option within six months, he could only get gratuity and lumpsum amount, in place of pension - Delay committed by SCERT in depositing its share of leave salary and pension grant cannot be used to penalize respondent no.1.
Finding of Court : Delay of sixteen years would affect consequential claim for arrears. High Court was not justified in directing payment of arrears relating to sixteen years, and that too with interest. It ought to have restricted relief relating to arrears to only three years before date of writ petition, or from date of demand to date of writ petition, whichever was lesser. It ought not to have granted interest on arrears in such circumstances - NDMC will pay retiral benefits, as directed by Tribunal, as expeditiously as possible, though not later than three weeks from date of receipt of a copy of this order; bearing in mind fact that respondent no.1 retired from service, and he is today 72 years of age and claims to be suffering from financial hardships on account of non-payment of pension - In effect, relief that respondent no.1 had sought before Tribunal was that he should be granted a pro-rata pension, for service rendered by him, in his capacity as Assistant Teacher in schools run by NDMC - It is important to note that, in this period, respondent no.1 had also included two years, which was period for which he held lien over his earlier post on his appointment as a Lecturer with respondent no.2/State Council of Educational Research and Training.
Result : Writ Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
| Contents |
|
| Background .............................................................................................. | 2 |
| Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner .................................................... | 5 |
| Submissions on behalf of respondent no. 1 ................................................... | 6 |
| Submissions on behalf of respondent no. 2 ................................................... | 8 |
| Analysis and reasons ..................................................................................... | 8 |
| Conclusion ................................................................................................... | 2 |
Background:-
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.02.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No.4548/2018.
1.1. Respondent no.1 is the original applicant. He had approached the Tribunal to assail the order dated 13.12.2017, passed by the petitioner i.e., North Delhi Municipal Corporation [in short ‘NDMC’].
1.2 In effect, the relief that respondent no.1 had sought before the Tribunal was that he should be granted a pro-rata pension, for the service rendered by him, in his capacity as Assistant Teacher in the schools run by NDMC, between 05.10.1977 and 06.11.1991. It is important to note that, in this period, respondent no.1 had also included two years, which was the period for which he held lien over his earlier post on his appointment as a Lecturer with respondent no.2/State Council of Educational Research and Training [in short “SCERT”].
1.3 Thus, respondent no.1 sought a direction qua NDMC for payment of pro-rata pension with effect from 07.11.1991 i.e., the date when he was finally absorbed by SCERT. As indicated above, the period spanning between 05.10.1977 and 06.11.1991 included two years of lien which he held i.e., between 07.11.1989 and 06.11.1991. Respondent no.1 was appointed as a Lecturer with the SCERT, on 07.11.1989.
1.4. Shorn of verbiage, the admitted position is that SCERT is an autonomous body constituted under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and works under the aegis of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi [in short “GNCTD”]. There is also no dispute that SCERT is not an organization, which confers pensionary benefits on its employees.
1.5. It is in these circumstances that respondent no.1 approached the NDMC for the grant of pro-rata pensionary benefits for a period of service spanning 14 years, which included two years of lien.
2. The Tribunal ruled in the favour of respondent no.1, and accordingly, directed the NDMC to grant respondent no.1 pro-rata pension from the date he stood finally absorbed in SCERT, albeit, as per rules.
2.1. Furthermore, via the impugned order, the NDMC was also directed to pay to respondent no.1 arrears of pension, within 8 weeks of the receipt of a copy of its order, along with interest calculated at the prevailing General Provident Fund (GPF) rates, for the periods for which the payments of respective instalments of pension were delayed.
2.2. The record shows that, before the Tribunal, the NDMC resisted the abovementioned O.A., broadly, on the following grounds :-
(ii) Pension cannot be paid by a “non-pensionable body” in which a government servant was absorbed. In this regard reliance was placed on Rule 37(3) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, "37. Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body
(3) Where there is a pension scheme in a body controlled or financed by the Central Government in which a Government servant is absorbed, he shall be entitled to exercise option either to count the service rendered under the Central Government in
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
