Delhi High Court
Dtc vs Ved Prakash on 24 November, 2006
Author: M Mudgal
Bench: M Mudgal, J Singh
JUDGMENT
Mukul Mudgal, J.
1. This Latter Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 8. 11. 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge partly allowing the writ petition of the respondent and directing the appellant herein to fix petitioner's pension as on the date of his retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS).
2. The appellant DTC has formulated a Voluntary Retirement Scheme on 03. 03. 1993 and the eligibility criteria is stated to be as follows:
Eligibility
An employee must have completed ten years of service in the corporation of completed 40 years of age of qualify for consideration under the scheme. For this purpose, period of deputation/retention of lieu in the parent office in lieu of deputation prior to absorption in the regular service of the corporation will be excluded.
3. The petitioner had served in the DTC from 18. 8. 1982 to 30. 4. 1993. The respondent had opted for voluntary retirement pursuant to the above clause in the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. On 2. 9. 1993 this request of the respondent was accepted by the DTC and retirement was made effective from 30. 4. 1993. The relevant portion of the order accepting the application filed by the respondent, reads as under:
Sh. Ved Parkash S/o Sh. Khushi Ram Design. Ex. Cond. B. No. 16273 T. No. 34999 of this unit was appointed in DTC on 18. 8. 1982 and he was retired from the services of this Corporation vide memo No. FINE-II/Cond?VRS/93/1629 dated 30.4.93. He has opted for pension.
Accordingly, his own share towards C. P. Fund in respect of Sh. Ved Parkash is hereby released. The amount thereof may please be paid through cheque to Sh. Ved Parkash. ?
4. The grievance in the writ petition filed by the respondent arose when he was denied the option of pension in spite of Voluntary retirement and no pension in terms of VRS Scheme as well as circular dated 27. 11. 1992 was being released to the respondent. Before the learned Single Judge, the DTC has disputed its liability to pay pension and has averred that on a proper calculation, the period of service of the respondent was found to be 8 years, 7 months and 12 days after deducting unauthorized leave, therefore he was not eligible for pension. The learned Single Judge upheld the claim of pension on voluntary retirement, and upheld the decision permitting the respondent to retire as per the VRS dated 3. 3. 1993.
5. Learned Single Judge has recorded that conjoint reading of clause 2 and 3 of the circular as well as clause 9 shows that all the existing employees as on 27. 11. 1992 were entitled to the benefit of pension and those who did not opt for pension were deemed to have opted for it.
6. The only plea raised before us is that though the respondent has served DTC from 18. 8. 1982 to 30. 4. 1993 which is admittedly more than 10 years and 8 months, however, the respondent had taken unauthorized leave for a certain period, and accordingly, he was not entitled to avail of VRS and the pension.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant has attempted to rely upon Rule 21-27 of the CCS(Pension) Rules and has averred that leave of the respondent was deemed to be unauthorized. We are of the view that since there was no such plea of unauthorized leaves in the petition, we are not required to go into this aspect. We have also not been shown as to whether any disciplinary action was taken against the respondent for the alleged unauthorized leave.
8. We are satisfied that the qualifying service has been completed by the respondent as he was in service from 18. 8. 1982 to 30. 4. 1993. The allegation that during the said period of qualifying service, the respondent was on leave, is of no consequence as the qualifying service cannot be reduced by the leave taken.
9. We have also noted the fact that the order dated 2. 9. 1992 having once granted VRS to the respondent, thereafter the DTC cannot be permitted to back out of the said commitment and is estopped from doing so. Had the appellant not assured pension, the respondent would not have opted for voluntary retirement.
10. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge as he has rightly held that the respondent has completed a qualifying service of more than 10 years and accordingly, could not be denied pension. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
