Delhi High Court
Rajender Singh vs Dtc And Anr. on 23 August, 2005
Author: S R Bhat
Bench: S R Bhat
JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. On the last date of hearing, namely, 1st August 2005 too, there was no appearance. The petitioner had joined the respondent, namely, DTC as a Driver in the year 1983. He was not allowed to join duties on 12.06.91 and was directed to appear before a Medical Board consequent to which he was prematurely retired from the service.
2. The petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) 4577/1993 where the statement of the respondents that he would be reinstated subject to determination of the question of back wages was recorded on 25th January 1994. Apparently, the petitioner was ventually reinstated in March 1994 and arrears of salary were also paid thereafter.
3. Pursuant to a scheme of voluntary retirement, the petitioner opted for release from the DTC which was accepted on 31st March 1995. He received an amount of Rs. 66773.30/- from the DTC in settlement of the VRS dues. Apparently, the full dues were not paid and he continued to make representations from time to time in 1995-96. Copies of such representations have been placed on record. The letter dated 25th February 1997 of the petitioner would show that the cheque for Rs. 22,303.80 admitted to be payable the petitioner, as per DTC's order, was cancelled and the petitioner had been again asked to approach the Accounts Branch of the DTC.
4. In this background, the petitioner has approached the Court for an appropriate writ or order that the voluntary retirement dated 31.03.95, to quash on account of non compliance with the terms of the scheme of the DTC which required payment of the entrapments or in the alternative direct the respondent DTC to pay arrears of pension due from 01.06.95.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jagpal Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1997 (70) DLT 435 and also Division Bench. The Court had , in those cases, dealt with the terms of the Pension Scheme ('the scheme') formulated by the DTC on 27.11.92, and the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 1993 (VRS-1993). The Scheme had contemplated that employees who did not opt for pension were deemed to have availed of it. The VRS-1993, by Clause 4(g) mandated payment of pension to all employees who entitled to it provided they had put in the qualifying service of 10 years, as per the Pension Scheme.
6. In the present case, in spite of the matter having been filed in the year 1999, no return has been filed by the DTC. The fact that the petitioner had put in 10 years, cannot be disputed in view of the DTC's own conduct in accepting his application for voluntary retirement, on 31.03.95.
7. As far as the issue of putting back the petitioner into service is concerned, I am of the opinion that he ought to have approached the Court at the earliest if his grievance was that the full amounts was not paid. Having been relieved in 1995, the petitioner should have approached within reasonable time; however he approached the Court much later in the year 1999. The only issue therefore is whether the alternative relief claimed, namely payment of pension can be granted.
8. The payment of pension to those who were entitled to it on the basis of Clause 9 of the Pension Scheme of 27.11.1992 in respect of those who did not specifically opt but were deemed to have opted, has been settled by the judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court. In view of that, the petitioner, who was reinstated to the service of the DTC by the orders of this Court in 1994, would undoubtedly qualify for relief because he was admittedly was allowed to avail the benefit of voluntary retirement which is premised upon the fulfilllment of the 10 years qualifying service. No exception can be taken to the petitioner's termination during the interregnum, because he was reinstated, and subsequently allowed to opt for VRS, which would not have been permissible otherwise.
9. In this view of the matter, a direction is issued to the respondents to fix the pension payable to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today. The respondent DTC shall also calculate the arrears and ensure that the amounts payable to the petitioner as per pension fixation orders are paid to him within w.e.f. 01.03.99 within a period of three months from today.
10. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
