JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)--By this writ petition, Petitioner seeks disbursement of his retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, leave encashment and pension, w.e.f. 01.07.2006 to 30.11.2012 with consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per annum.

2. Facts are in a narrow compass. Petitioner joined All India Radio (AIR) in 1975 and subsequently the Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) in 1979, where he was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in 1995. In terms of the applicable statutory framework ordained under Delhi Electricity Reforms Act, 2000 and the Delhi Electricity Reform (Transfer Scheme) Rules, 2001, at the time of unbundling DVB, Petitioner was transferred to TATA Power Delhi Distribution Ltd./Respondent No.1. On 30.06.2006, Petitioner sought voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of CCS Pension Rules, 1972 and his request was accepted vide order dated 06.09.2006 and he was relieved w.e.f. 01.07.2006. It was made clear in the order that the onus of settlement of terminal benefits as well as GPF till June, 2002 and thereafter till 01.07.2006, for which NDPL had already deposited the money in respect of leave, salary and pension contribution with the Employees Terminal Benefit Fund-2002 (Pension Trust), shall be entirely on the Pension Trust, without recourse to the same being dealt by NDPL.

3. On 03.11.2009, Department of Power, GNCTD sent a communication to the Pension Trust to entertain all cases of Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules w.e.f. 01.07.2002, treating them at par with regular retirees and consequently raise demand on the successor entities for subsequent funding of the Trust for future liabilities.

4. The grievance ventilated in the writ petition, which compelled the Petitioner to approach this Court, is that the Pension Trust and Respondent No.1 are shifting liabilities on each other although the eligibility of the Petitioner to receive retiral benefits is not in dispute. Contention of the Petitioner is that pension is not the bounty of a State and as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara and Others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, is not an ex gratia payment but is a payment for past service rendered by an employee over the years and a socio-economic justice to those who in heyday of their lives, ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age, they would not be left in lurch and that the Respondents have totally forgotten and overlooked these significant observations of the Apex Court.

5. From a reading of the writ petition, it is evident that the only dispute between the parties to the lis is as to on whom the onus to discharge the liability to pay the retiral benefits rests. From the affidavits filed on record, it is evident that Respondents have been shifting the liability between one and other albeit the eligibility of the Petitioner to receive the retiral benefits on acceptance of his voluntary retirement way back in the year 2006 is not in dispute.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view that case of the Petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in Tata Power Delhi Distribution Power Limited v. Smt. Rosy Jain and Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 1650, and it is no longer open to Respondent No.2/Pension Trust to disown the liability to release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner as this conflict as to whether the employer i.e. the DISCOMS or the Pension Trust is liable, has been resolved and decided.

7. The Division Bench has referred to observations of this Court in North Delhi Power Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2007 SCC OnLine 919, (`SVRS Judgment') that the Pension Trust cannot deny its liability towards employees retiring on voluntary retirement under Rule 48-A of the Pension Rules. Significantly, no appeal was filed by the Pension Trust against the SVRS Judgment, which has thus attained finality. The Division Bench has, after an in-depth analysis of and deliberation on the issu