Babita vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 770 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No. 5670/2011
%                                                           15th February, 2013

BABITA                                                            ..... Petitioner

                            Through:     Ms. Eram Khan, Adv.

                            versus

DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD & ORS                          ..... Respondents

                            Through:     Mr. Vibhav Mishra, Adv. for Ms. Avnish
                                         Ahlawat, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

    To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.             This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who is the widow of the

employee Sh. Jai Parkash claiming pension from the respondent no.1/employer.


2.             The fact of the matter is that the husband of the petitioner namely Sh.

Jai Parkash, during his life time, did not opt for the pension scheme in spite of a

last Memorandum dated 19.8.2005 (and the cutoff date of the same being

31.8.2005), and therefore, late Sh. Jai Parkash received the entire terminal benefits

as payable to him as an employee under the service rules. It could not be disputed

before me that the lumpsum benefits were duly paid to and utilized by Sh. Jai

W.P.(C) 5670/2011                                                             Page 1 of 3
 Parkash in his life time. Sh. Jai Parkash died on 22.2.2006. It is thereafter that this

petition has been filed for claiming pension by the widow of late Sh. Jai Parkash.


3.     The aforesaid facts show that the deceased employee received all the service

benefits in terms of the service rules, the deceased employee never in his life time

opted for pension in accordance with the rules within the cutoff date, and all the

terminal benefits as payable under the rules were paid and already utilized by the

deceased Sh. Jai Parkash in his life time.


4.     I may note that even if Sh. Jai Parkash, in his life time had applied for grant

of pension, the same would not have been payable to him because not only Sh. Jai

Parkash exercised the opinion for grant of pension, but also on the other hand he

utilized the lumpsum benefits, which he received as terminal benefits, and

therefore, he would be estopped from claiming pension. I have had an occasion to

examine the aspect of estoppel in my recent judgment in the case of R.

Kothandaraman Vs. The Speaker, Lok Sabha Secretariat & Anr. in W.P.(C) No.

7132/2009 decided on 10.1.2013 wherein I have held that on taking of voluntary

retirement if a person receives complete lumpsum benefits and utilizes the same,

thereafter, he again cannot claim benefits of reinstatement in service. Applying the

principle of the above decision, late Sh. Jai Parkash having taken all the service



W.P.(C) 5670/2011                                                            Page 2 of 3
 benefits during his life time, late Jai Parkash as also the present petitioner are

estopped from claiming the pension benefits as claimed in this writ petition.


5.     In view of the above, the present petition is misconceived and is accordingly

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




FEBRUARY 15, 2013                                    VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

ib