Delhi High Court
Jitendra Pal Singh vs The Lt. Governor on 11 May, 2010
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ L.P.A 144/2010
% Reserved on: 26th April, 2010
Decided on: 11th May, 2010
Jitendra Pal Singh,
Ex. PGT, Physics
H.No. 1398, Sector-19,
Faridabad-121 008
Haryana. ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Subrat Birla, Advocate
versus
1. The Lt. Governor
National Capital Territory of Delhi
Old Secretariat, Delhi.
2. The Director of Education
Delhi Administration
Old Secretariat
Delhi.
4. The Chairman
Apeejay Education Society
Apeejay Stya House,
14, Commercial Complex
Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-II,
New Delhi-110 048. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shoaib Haider, Advocate for Mr. N
Waziri, Standing sounsel for GNCTD.
Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Advocate for R-2
Coram:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
L.P.A No. 144/2010 Page 1 of 6
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? Yes
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
1. The present appeal arises out of an order dated 13 th January, 2010
passed in WP(C) No. 21243/2005 whereby the petitioner's petition seeking
pension as is given to the employees of Schools run by the appropriate
authority was dismissed.
2. Brief facts relevant for the present case are that the Appellant was a
teacher in the Respondent No.3 School and attained superannuation on 31 st
March, 2005. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, he never
voluntarily contributed to the Contributory Pension Scheme (CPF) offered by
the Respondent, and as no option was given, the Appellant was entitled for
pension under Section 10 of the Delhi School Education Act and the Rules
framed thereunder. It is stated that there is no stipulation in the said provision
that the pension scheme of the school run by the appropriate authority could
be replaced by the Contributory Provident Fund as provided in Employees
Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The Appellant further states that he wrote a
letter to the Respondent No.3 with copy to Respondent No.2, seeking grant of
pension, to which he received no response from Respondent No.2 and
Respondent No.3 directed him to approach the EPF Department.
3. Learned counsel for the Respondent controverting the contentions on
behalf of the Appellant submits that the Appellant was regularly contributing
his share to the provident fund and throughout enjoyed the benefits thereunder
and was entitled to pension only under the "Family Pension Fund". By way
of a chart, it is demonstrated that both the employee and employer contributed
towards their respective share of the provident fund and the Appellant having
availed and withdrawn the amount from the provident fund account, cannot
now seek pension benefits which are available to the Govt. employees.
Learned counsel for the Respondent places reliance on the decision rendered
by this Court in V.S. Rahi vs. The Lt. Governor, Delhi & Ors 109 (2004)
DLT 644 and Ajit Singh vs. Director of Education & Ors. 2006 VIII Apex
Decisions (Delhi) 708.
4. We have heard the parties. It may be noted that the learned counsel for
the Appellant bases his claim on Section 10 of the Delhi School Education
Act which reads as under:-
"10. Salaries of employees--(1) The scales of pay and
allowances, medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident
fund and other prescribed benefits of the employees of a
recognized private school shall not be less than those of the
employees of the corresponding status in school run by the
appropriate authority:
Provided that where the scales of pay and allowances,
medical facilities, pension, gratuity, provident fund and
other prescribed benefits of the employees of any
recognized private school are less than those of the
employees of the corresponding status in the schools run by
the appropriate authority, the appropriate authority shall
direct, in writing, the managing committee of such schools
to bring the same up to the level of those of the employees
of the corresponding status in schools run by the appropriate
authority:
Provided further that the failure to comply with such
direction shall be deemed to be non-compliance with the
conditions for continuing recognition of an existing school
and the provisions of Section 4 shall apply accordingly."
5. Section 10(1) of Delhi School Education Act does not contemplate that
an employee will be given pension as well as Contributory Provident Fund
and despite the fact that a person opts for the contributory provident fund
whether by written consent or by way of his conduct, he would also be
entitled to pension. According to the said provision all that is required is that
the benefits of the employees of any recognized private school should not be
less than those of the employees of the corresponding status in the schools run
by the appropriate authority. In the present case, the Appellant and the
Respondent No.3 regularly contributed to the Contributory Provident Fund
and amount from the said fund was also withdrawn by the Appellant. Though
the Appellant never gave the formal option but the contribution to the fund
from the Appellant's salary was under his signatures. Thus, in view of the
conduct of the Appellant, it is a case of deemed acceptance.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Committee for Protection of
Rights of ONGC Employees and Ors vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission
through its Chairman and Another, (1990) 2 SCC 472 held that it was not
the intention of Parliament that the Provident Fund benefit envisaged by the
Provident Fund Act would be in addition to the pensionary benefits. While
quoting the statement of objects and reasons of the Provident Fund Act it held
that it indicated that the Scheme of Contributory Provident Fund by way of
retiral benefit, envisaged by the Provident Fund Act, is in the nature of a
substitute for old age pension because it was felt that in the prevailing
conditions in India, the institution of a pension scheme could not be visualized
in the near future
7. Thus, the benefits of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme are in
the nature of substitution and not in addition to the pension and as there is no
pension scheme applicable to the private unaided schools in Delhi, the same
cannot be made applicable by taking recourse to Sec. 10 of the Delhi
Education Act. We are in agreement with the decision rendered by the learned
Single Judge and the decisions of this Court in the case of S.S. Nayar vs.
Chairman, ONGC and others, 88 (2000) DLT 77, V.S. Rahi vs. The Lt.
Governor, Delhi & Ors 109 (2004) DLT 644 and Ajit Singh vs. Director of
Education & Ors. 2006 VIII Apex Decisions (Delhi) 708.
8. We find no infirmity in the judgment. Hence the appeal is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
(MADAN B.LOKUR)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MAY 11, 2010
raj
