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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Avinash Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3430 of 2021, CM No. 30961 of 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2021




The court established that work-charged and unjustified suspension periods count towards qualifying service for pension eligibility, even post voluntary retirement, with limits on retrospective claims.

Headnote:(A) CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 - Rule 13 and Rule 23 - Denial of post retiral benefits - Petitioner challenged the impugned order citing lack of qualifying service of 20 years due to exclusions including suspension and work-charged service - Court found suspension unjustified, necessitating its inclusion for qualifying service and ruled work-charged service counts toward pension eligibility. '...the distinction in Rule 13...stands obliterated,' and 'the period of suspension need to be counted for the purpose of qualifying service.' (Paras 20, 23).

(B) Continuity of claims - Court ruled that pension entitlement can arise even after voluntary retirement for a person with qualifying service, with limitations on retrospective claims to three years prior to the filing of the petition. '...the benefits the petitioner shall be entitled to under this order shall be limited to a period of three years before filing of the present petition.' (Paras 26, 27).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having taken voluntary retirement in 2004, sought pension and medical benefits after being denied on grounds of insufficient service length. He contended unjust exclusions of work-charged and suspension periods.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s total qualifying service was determined to exceed 20 years upon inclusion of disputed periods, entitling him to benefits.

Issues: Whether the petitioner qualifies for retiral benefits including pension, considering allegedly excluded service periods.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that both work-charged service and suspension periods, when unjustified, contribute to qualifying service calculations, allowing entitlement to pension.

Result: Petition allowed with directives on benefits.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's challenge to denial of benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. background of petitioner's employment and vrs. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. arguments regarding service exclusion. (Para 7 , 8)
4. respondents' opposition to petitioner's claims. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. petitioner's rebuttals and supporting judgments. (Para 12 , 13)
6. legal question about entitlement to benefits. (Para 14 , 15)
7. examination of qualifying service rules. (Para 16 , 17 , 19 , 20)
8. clarification on counting periods for service. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
9. continuity of right to claim pension. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
10. determination of medical benefits post-retirement. (Para 28 , 29)
11. final order and petition disposal. (Para 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (ORAL)--This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:

    "In the light of aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed to this Hon'ble Court that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: -

    (i) Set aside Letter No. TPDDL/HR-ES/2020-21/201 dated 05-3-2021 passed by respondent thereby denying post retiral benefits to the petitioner holding the same to unlawful and illegal.

    (ii) Issue further writ/order or direction to the respondent thereby directing the respondent to provide all post retiral benefits to the petitioner including medical and pension etc. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the present case."

2. The respondents in this petition are Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. and DVB Pension Trust, in terms of the amended memo of parties filed by the petitioner.

3. The challenge of the petitioner in this petition is primarily to the Order dated March 05, 2021 whereby the request of the petitioner for correction and updation of his service records and allowing consequential retiral benefits including pension and medical facilities was rejected, primarily on the ground that the petitioner has taken voluntary retirement in the year 2003/2004 and also that the service of the petitioner fall short of minimum requisite qualifying period of 20 years and therefore, he is not entitled to the pensionary and medical benefits.

4. Some of the facts as highlighted by Mr. Amit Sahni, learned counsel for the petitioner are that, the petitioner joined the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (`DESU', for short) on May 03, 1982 as a Work/CP Pump Operator. While working on the said post, he applied against the departmental vacancy for the post of Instrument Repairer and Tester on January 28, 1983.

5. Between June 2001 to February 2002, the petitioner was put under suspension for a period of 257 days; he was later reinstated with all past benefits. According to Mr. Sahni, on July 01, 2002 the successor Company of the DESU, i.e., Delhi Vidyut Board was unbundled into six successor companies, which included North Delhi Power Ltd. The services of the petitioner came under the employment of North Delhi Power Ltd. Later, on the formation of Tata Power Delhi Distribution Limited (`TPDDL', for short), a joint venture between the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Tata Power Company Ltd., which holds a 51% majority stake in the venture.

6. On November 29, 2003, a Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced by the erstwhile North Delhi Power Ltd. with a clear stipulation that any regular employee of North Delhi Power Ltd. who has completed ten years of service or reached the age of 40 years on the date of introduction of the Scheme may seek voluntary retirement under the said Scheme by making a request to the Competent Authority. The petitioner had applied under the said Scheme for voluntary retirement. The request of the petitioner was accepted and he was accordingly retired on January 31, 2004.

7. It is noted that retiral benefits were denied to the petitioner on the ground that he had only put in 18 years, 11 months and 3 days of servic

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top