Delhi High Court
Manzoor Ahmed Khan vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 8 January, 2010
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No.13142/2009
% Date of Decision: 08.01.2010
Manzoor Ahmed Khan .... Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashok Bhalla, Advocate
Versus
Delhi Transport Corporation .... Respondents
Through Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be YES
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
*
The petitioner challenges the order dated 10th August, 2009 in TA
No.789 of 2009, Manzoor Ahmed Khan v. Delhi Transport Corporation
passed by Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his petition
seeking directions to the respondent to treat the petitioner as pension
optee and to settle his terminal dues and direction to pay interest at
12% per annum for delayed payment of his terminal dues.
In order to claim that the petitioner is entitled for pension, he
relied on photocopies of certain documents which were found to be
incomplete and appeared to be tampered. The original documents were
not produced by the counsel for the petitioner on the ground that they
were not available with the petitioner.
The Tribunal has noted that the documents relied on by the
petitioner did not inspire confidence for inferring that the petitioner is to
be treated as an optee for pension. The documents relied were lists
allegedly prepared by the respondents. It was contended that the
original documents as allegedly submitted by the petitioner were not
available.
The respondents however, produced the original records and the
records were found to be well-founded. The master copies of salary
slips for different periods pertaining to the petitioner were also
produced with the entry "N" denoting that the case of the petitioner was
to be treated as of an employee who did not belong to the pension
scheme.
The respondent also produced register maintained to show that
the petitioner was governed by CPF Scheme. The amounts contributed
by the petitioner were found to be higher than the amount that was
statutorily payable and consequently it was inferred that he was
contributing to CPF voluntarily. The employee's contribution at higher
rate would not have been paid by the petitioner, had he opted for
pension.
The petitioner on his retirement had also accepted both parts of
the provident fund which had accumulated to his credit and, therefore,
later demand by the petitioner that he was an optee for the pension
scheme cannot be accepted.
Considering all the record and facts and circumstances, the
Tribunal has relied on the version of DTC/respondent based on the
documentary evidence vis-à-vis the incomplete photocopies filed by the
petitioner which have not been accepted holding that the petitioner was
not an optee for pension scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has failed to point out any such illegality or irregularity which will
require interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition is, therefore, without any merit and it is
dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
January 8th , 2010 MOOL CHAND GRARG, J.
'Dev'
