Delhi High Court
Lilu Ram vs D.T.C. And Ors. on 23 August, 2005
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Issue Rule. With consent of counsel for parties, the petition was taken for final hearing.
2. The petitioner claims a direction to respondents to release pension in accordance with a scheme (hereafter 'The Pension Scheme') introduced on 27th November, 1992 by the respondents (hereafter referred to as 'DTC'').
3. The petitioner joined the DTC as a driver on 13th April, 1983. While he was in service, the DTC introduced the pension scheme. Apart from other things, clause 9 of the said pension scheme mandated inter alia that those employees who did not exercisehe option within a period prescribed or whose option forms were in-complete or defective, were to be deemed to have opted for the pension.
4. On 3rd March, 1993, the DTC formulated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). The salient features of the said scheme were that the applicant ought to have completed 10 years of service or 40 years of age to qualify for consideration. The benefits of the scheme included inter alia terminal benefits usually admissible to employees upon cessation of service, three months notice, pay ex-gratia payments and, pension as per the scheme of 1992.
5. The petitioner applied for voluntary retirement in terms of scheme and was permitted to retire on 31st May, 1993. The DTC released the amount of ex-gratia and also other dues as per the VRS. It is alleged that inspite of these admitted facts, the DTChas chosen to withhold pension from the petitioner.
6. The DTC in its response has taken a position that the petitioner is not entitled to pension on account of his ineligibility; he did not have the 10 years qualifying service.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision of Jagpal Singh's v. DTC 1997(70) DLT 435; the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA 33/98 (decided on 16.03.2000) and the decision of the Supreme Court in DTC Retired Employees Association v. DTC , to say that the DTC cannot deny pensionary benefit. In fact, in the decision in Jagpal Singh's case it was held that the stand of the DTC that pension was one of the alternative benefits, was unacceptable, and that all those qualifing in terms of the order dated 27.11.92, granting pension, and opting for voluntary retirement, cannot be deprived pension.
8. Mr. Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the DTC reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit and also submitted that the period of 10 years service required to be fulfillled, for eligibility to pension, was not satisfied. Further, it was urged that the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for 486 days. He submits that if that period is excluded, the service would be brought down to 8 years 3 months and 17 days.
9. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner's case is covered by the decisions of this Court. It was categorically held by the judgments of this Court that entitlement to pension cannot be taken away since it stands on a different footing, from VRS. All that happens upon acceptance of VRS would that the employees would cease to be on the rolls of the employer/Corporation; the VRS is aimed at reducing man-power.
10. The respondents' position about the petitioner's not qualifying for pension cannot be accepted since as per letter dated 31st May, 1993, he was relieved from services. The petitioner could not have been relieved from service unless he had completed 1years as per clause 2 of the pension scheme itself. In view of the fact that the DTC accepted the petitioner as having qualified and relieved him from service on exercise of option of VRS-1993, they cannot be now heard to say that he did not qualify of the scheme, or is disentitled to pension. The DTC cannot on the one hand stand by its order relieving the petitioner under the VRS, and in the very next breath disown its order, by alleging ineligibility to one entitlement viz pension.
11. In view of the above findings and following the decisions mentioned in Para 7 above, the petition has to be allowed. The DTC is directed to ensure that the petitioner hereafter receives pension, in accordance with the Rules, and all arrears of pension from the time of the filing of this petition, namely, 1st April, 2001 (since the present proceedings were initiated on 16th April, 2001) within eight weeks from today.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. No costs.
