Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Rajender Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 2611 Del

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 2611 Del
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2012

Delhi High Court

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Rajender Singh on 20 April, 2012

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Judgment delivered on 20.04.2012

+      W.P.(C) 2264/2012

DELHI TRANPORT CORPORATION                          ...     Petitioner


                                          versus

SH. RAJENDER SINGH                                  ...     Respondent


Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   :    Mr. J.S. Bhasin, Adv.
For the Respondent   :    None.



CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN


                          JUDGMENT

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J. (ORAL)

1. The only issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether

the respondent is entitled to pension on the ground that he has 10 years of

qualifying service in the backdrop of Rule 49(3) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

It is an admitted position that the respondent has completed 09 years, 10 months

and 6 days of qualifying service.

2. Rule 49 of the said Rules reads as under:-

"49. Amount of Pension

(1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be calculated at the rate of half month's emoluments for every completed six monthly period of qualifying service.

(2)(a) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules after completing qualifying service of not less than thirty-three years, the amount of pension shall be calculated at fifty per cent of average emoluments, subject to a maximum of four thousand and five hundred rupees per mensem;

(b) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying service of thirty three years, but after completing qualifying service of ten years, the amount of pension shall be proportionate to the amount of pension admissible under Clause (a) and in no case the amount of pension shall be less than [Rupee three hundred and seventy-five] per mensem ;

(c) notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (a) and Clause (b) the amount of invalid pension shall not be less than the amount of family pension admissible under sub-rule (2) of Rule 54. (3) In calculating the length of qualifying service, fraction of a year equal to three months and above shall be treated as a completed one half- year and reckoned as qualifying service.

(Underlining added)

(4) The amount of pension finally determined under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of sub-rule (2), shall be expressed in whole rupees and where the pension contains a fraction of a rupee it shall be rounded off to the next higher rupee."

3. On a plain reading of Rule 49(3), it is clear that while calculating the length

of qualifying service, a fraction of a year equal to 03 months and above is to be

treated as a completed „one half-year‟ and reckoned as qualifying service for that

duration.

4. The respondent, as stated above had completed 09 years 10 months and 6

days of qualifying service. In other words, he had admittedly completed 9½ years

plus a further 04 months and 06 days of qualifying service which if read in the light

of Rule 49(3) would amount to another half year of qualifying service. This, in

turn, would mean that the respondent had, in fact, completed 10 years of qualifying

service and, therefore, he would be entitled to pension.

5. A plea had been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that recently

the Supreme Court, in the case of DTC v. Lillu Ram (Civil Appeal No.11440/2011

decided on 14.12.2011), held that the case of a person invoking VRS and that of a

person retiring under the said rules are different. Therefore, according to the

learned counsel for the petitioner, Rule 49(3) of the said Rules cannot be invoked

in this case inasmuch as the respondent had taken voluntary retirement under VRS

(Voluntary Retirement Scheme). He placed reliance on para 26 of the said decision

of the Supreme Court, which reads as under:-

"As mentioned hereinabove, there are two different things one with regard to grant of VRS and another with regard to entitlement for pensionary benefits. First one is governed under the VRS whereas the second one is governed under the Statutory Rules. Merely because his application for voluntary retirement was accepted, automatically, he would not become entitled for grant of pensionary benefits."

6. We do not agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the

petitioner. What the Supreme Court has observed is that merely because a person‟s

application has been accepted for voluntary retirement it does not mean that he is

automatically entitled to the pensionary benefits. The Supreme Court clarified that

whereas voluntaty retirement is governed under the VRS, pension would be

governed under the Statutory Rules, which, in this case, are the CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972. Thus, there is nothing in the Supreme Court‟s decision which would

indicate that the said pension rules would not apply.

7. In fact the contents of para 26 of the said decision of the Supreme Court

would make it clear that the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 were the Rules which were

applied in that case also. Therefore, it cannot be contended that Rule 49(3) of the

said Rule would not have any application in the present case.