Dtc Retired Employees' ... vs Delhi Transport Corporation
2006 Latest Caselaw 1682 Del

JUDGMENT

Manju Goel, J.

1. Pursuant to the last order of 19.9.2006, Mr. Vibhu Shankar appearing for the respondent was required to see if the order of this Court in the case of Ram Deva Lal v. DTC has been challenged in an LPA. It is contended by Mr. Vibhu Shankar that the order in the case of Ram Deva Lal has not been challenged so far but that the respondent is contemplating to challenge this order in an appeal.

2. I find the case of Ram Deva Lal is similar to this case in hand. The present two petitioners-Mr. Sukhvir Singh and Mr. Jai Singh applied for VRS and obtained retirement hoping to get pension. They have not been given pension on the ground that they did not fulfill the criterion of qualifying service as for certain period of their employment they were on leave without pay.

3. My attention is drawn to the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA 33/1998, DTC v. Shri Baijnath Bhargava and Ors. in which it has been found that the entitlement of pension is linked with the number of years of qualifying service rendered by a Government servant and that those who have not completed 10 years of qualifying service, have not earned the pension. There is no quarrel with this proposition but what weighs in favor of the petitioners in this case is that the petitioners were not put to notice about the fact that there is some period of their service which was not being counted towards qualifying service.

4. My attention is also drawn to the order of this Court dated 16.9.2004 requiring the respondent to file an affidavit giving full particulars of the service as well as leave availed of by the two petitioners. It has also been observed in this order that the signatures of the petitioners had not been obtained in the service book in which any entry of the leave period not qualifying for pension has been made.

5. In the case of Ram Deva Lal v. Delhi Transport Corporation decided on 25.4.2006, Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat has observed as under:

9. There is no material either in the service book itself or any contemporaneous record (nor was it indicated in any of the affidavits) that the petitioner was put to notice that such periods of disputed service when he had availed extraordinary leave as was admissible to him was to be excluded from the petitioner's qualifying service. In the absence of such a notice to an employee, DTC cannot, in my opinion, take the position that some period of qualifying service has to be excluded, particularly after the petitioner opted for VRS on the assumption that he would be entitled to, reckoning the entire length of service for pension and pensionary benefits. In other words the duty to act fairly required, DTC to put petitioner on notice about the position of exclusion of three and a half years of periods of services at least when he sought to opt for VRS so that if he had any other alternative and wanted to continue in service, he could have exercised such choice.

10. In view of the above findings I am of the opinion that the respondent could not have excluded three and a half years' period of the petitioner's service when he obtained extraordinary leave.

6. I find no reason to take a different view. Although strictly speaking, the petitioners may have completed the period of service, equity is in favor of the petitioners.

7. In view of the above, I hold that the two petitioners are entitled to pension. The respondent will treat the two petitioners to have completed the minimum period of qualifying service and calculate the pension payable to them on that basis and give them the benefits of the scheme of VRS under which they were given retirement. Respondent is directed to release the payment as per this order within a period of three months.

8. Writ petition is disposed of.