Naresh Kumar vs Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd
2011 Latest Caselaw 886 Del

                                                          UNREPORTABLE


*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                             W.P. (C) No.957/2011


                                     Date of Decision: February 14, 2011


       NARESH KUMAR                             ..... Petitioner
                         through Mr. V.K.Goel, Advocate

                    versus


       BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD                 ..... Respondent
                      through None

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA

1.     Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
       judgment? No
2.     To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3.     Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No

REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner joined the service of Delhi Vidyut Board on

October 18, 1984. However, on July 01, 2002, Delhi Vidyut Board

ceased to exist and in its place, respondent came into existence.

Hence, the service of the petitioner was transferred to the respondent.

On December 18, 2003, the respondent came out with a Scheme

known as "Special Voluntary Retirement Scheme - 2003". It was

applicable to all regular employees who had completed 10 years of

service from the date of joining Delhi Vidyut Board or had attained the

age of 40 years. The Scheme provided for certain special benefits and

early bird incentive, but in so far as the pension is concerned, it

WP(C) No.957/2011 Page 1 provided that the pension shall be admissible as per Rules payable by

DVB Pension Trust.

It is not disputed by the petitioner that under the DVB Pension

Rules, an employee became admissible for pension only after

rendering 20 years of regular service. It is also not disputed by the

petitioner that on the date he applied for retirement under the

Scheme, he had completed 19 years but not 20 years of service.

Despite this admitted position, the petitioner is praying for pensionary

benefits as are admissible to those employees who have completed

20 years of service. Alternatively, he says that his voluntary

retirement be cancelled.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I feel that

there is no basis on which the petitioner can be allowed pensionary

benefits. He applied for the Scheme with his eyes wide open. It was

clearly laid down therein that so far as the pensionary benefits are

concerned, they shall be paid as were applicable to the employees of

Delhi Vidyut Board. The petitioner cannot lay any claim to those

benefits having applied for the Scheme voluntarily and consciously.

There is no merit in the writ-petition. The same is dismissed.

REKHA SHARMA, J.

FEBRUARY 14, 2011
ka




WP(C) No.957/2011                                                   Page 2