$~J-

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on : 11^th November, 2025. Pronounced on : 24th December, 2025.

+ LPA 575/2023 & CM APPL. 39925/2023

BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Anupam Varma, Mr. Nikhil Sharma and Ms. Simran Kohli, Advs.

versus

KEWAL KRISHAN & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. N.S. Dalal, Ms. Nidhi Dalal, Mr.

Alok Kumar, Ms. Rachana Dalal &

Mr. Karan Mann, Advs.

Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC (GNCTD) with Mr. N K Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam

& Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV

J U D G M E N T

Per DINESH MEHTA, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.05.2023, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby, learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondents Nos. 1-7 (writ petitioners) and directed the present appellant (respondent No.2 in the writ petition) to grant pension to the petitioners from the date of their Voluntary Retirement alongwith arrears with interest @

12% per annum from the date when the pension became due.

2. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ

petition filed by the respondents and directing the appellant to pay pension without properly adjudicating as to whether these employees were entitled for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as „Pension Rules of 1972‟) or not.

3. While taking the court through Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as „SVRS‟) as notified vide order dated 18.12.2003, learned senior counsel submitted that entitlement of becoming a member of the pension fund has been misconstrued by learned Single Judge as entitlement for the pension. In order to substantiate aforesaid contention, learned senior counsel took the court through the SVRS(Annexure A-2 in CM APPL no.10954/2024) and Trust Deed (Annexure A-7), more particularly clause 4.1.5 of the SVRS, definition clauses (xi) and (xxiv) of the Terminal Benefit Rules framed under Clause 2 of the Trust Deed (hereinafter referred to as „Terminal Benefit) and submitted that the eligibility to become a member of the DVB Pension Trust and qualifying services as given in clauses (xi) and (xxiv) clearly shows that on completion of 20 years of service, a person is entitled to become a member of pension fund and consequently, eligible to avail pension under Pension Rules of

1972.

4. Learned senior counsel read Rules 3(q), 35, 36, 48 and 48(A) of the Pension Rules of 1972 and submitted that a member of the fund has to complete 20 years of qualifying service to avail pension under the Pension Rules.

5. Reading clause 4.1.5 of SVRS, learned senior counsel argued, that the SVRS in unequivocal terms provides that an employee shall be eligible to get pension as per the applicable provisions of the Terminal Benefit Rules. Taking the Court through the provisions of the trust deed, learned counsel submitted that an employee can get pension, if he has completed 20 years of service. He further submitted that all writ petitioners (Respondent Nos. 1-7 herein) having completed 10 years of service were only entitled to become a member of the trust, but since they had not completed 20 years of service, they are not eligible for getting pension in terms of applicable Rule 49 of the Pension Rules.

6. Having apprised the court about the aforesaid, learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the writ petitioners (Respondent Nos. 1 to 7) had admittedly not completed 20 years of service as is evident from what has been pleaded in ground-B of the writ petition, and pointed out that the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 (writ petitioners) themselves have stated that they had completed more than 10 years of qualifying service, though less than 20 years.

7. Learned senior counsel relied up