ORDER

By Hon’ble Dr.Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A): -

By way of the present Original Application the applicant seeks the following relief:-

“(i) quash/set aside the reply dated

27.06.2022, wherein the respondents has rejected the claim of pension of the applicant, for being unreasonable, arbitrary, partisan and devoid of merits;

(ii) pass an order thereby awarding pensionary benefits to the applicant since the date of his VRS i.e. 31.12.1993 along with interest:

(iii) pass an order thereby awarding compensation to the applicant for the harassment being extended to the applicant by the respondents for illegally withholding the pensionary benefits and subjecting the applicant to discrimination violating the fundamental rights of the applicant by awarding pension to similarly placed employees and discarding the claim of the applicant.

(iv) pass any such order in favour of the applicant which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and in the interest of justice.

2. Brief facts of the present case is that the applicant joined as Mechanic on 30.07.2006 with the respondents No.1, i.e., Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC). The respondents issued office order No.16 dated 27.11.1992 introducing the pension scheme for its employees in the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC).

Clause 3 of the said Office Order No.16 is reproduced below as under:

“Clause 3. All the existing employees including those retired w.e.f.

03.08.1981 on wards would have the option to opt for the Pension Scheme or the Employee Contributory Provident Fund as at present with 30 days from the date of issue of this O.O. for the implementation of the Pension Scheme as approved by the Govt. of India.”

2.1 As per clause 9 of the said Scheme it was stated that the employee who did not submit any option would be deemed to have opted for such Pension Scheme benefits. But an individual employee had the option to remain in CPF Scheme. In pursuance with the office order, the present applicant vide his option dated 15.01.1993 exercised his option for the employees contributory provident fund stating that “do not opt for the pension scheme”. The respondents vide their office order dated 03.03.1993 introduced the Voluntary Retirement Scheme for its employee Clause 4 of the said scheme contains the details of entitlements, or fund and payments. Sub-clause G of clause 4 states that:

“as per the circular of 1993, now it is the policy of the department that the person willing to take VRS can also avail of the pensionary benefits. For your information, I filed the form for taking the VRS on 7.12.1993, and I request that I avail myself of the benefits of the pensionary scheme.

On account of the acceptance of my VRS I want to avail the pension as well, in case the pension cannot be granted, my VRS be please cancelled. I am writing this application for your information and I again request you to give me the pension.”

2.2 The respondents accepted the VRS application of the applicant and released him from the service w.e.f.

31.12.1993. The respondents released both employees as well as the employer shares of CPF to the applicant and informed the applicant that he is not entitled for D.T.C-Pension in view of the conditions mentioned in the VRS Scheme of the Corporation.

2.3. The respondent-D.T.C. issued a circular dated 7.5.1993 allowing its employees to change their option with VRS retirement if they had not opted for pension scheme earlier. The applicant claims that while applying for VRS he has clearly stated that he should be allowed pensionary benefits otherwise, his VRS application should be cancelled (Annexure A-3). As per the claim of the applicant, he has made a series of representations to the respondents to allow him pensionary benefits. However, the respondents did not accede to his demand. Ultimately, he sent a legal notice dated 03.05.2022 (Annexure A-1) requesting the responde