Delhi Transport Corporation vs Jasbir Singh Tokas
2014 Latest Caselaw 3005 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                  RSA No. 194/2011 and C.M. No.20408/2011

%                                                         8th July, 2014

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                 ......Appellant
                 Through: Ms. Rashmi Priya, Advocate.


                          VERSUS

JASBIR SINGH TOKAS                                       ...... Respondent
                          Through:       Mr. Manish Malhotra, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed against the concurrent judgments of the

courts below; of the trial court dated 4.11.2000 and the first appellate court

dated 29.8.2011; by which the suit of the respondent/plaintiff seeking

voluntary retirement has been decreed.


2.           Para 3 of the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant

in the trial court admits that the appellant is governed by the CCS (Pension)

Rules, 1972 for pension cases. Once CCS (Pension) Rules apply, Rule 48-A

RSA No.194/2011                                                  Page 1 of 2
 of the CCS (Pension) Rules will come into application and which Rule 48-A

with its sub-Rule 2 provides for automatic entitlement of VRS once the

employee has completed 20 years of service and has given three months'

notice seeking voluntary retirement.


3.           In the present case, it is not disputed by the appellant that the

respondent/employee/plaintiff had completed 20 years of service and that he

had given a three months' notice seeking voluntary retirement. In view of

proviso to Rule 48-A(2) if the notice for voluntary retirement is not accepted

within a period of three months, then on the expiry of the period of three

months, the notice is taken to be accepted and voluntary retirement takes

place. In the present case therefore I do not find that the courts below have

committed any illegality and/or perversity in decreeing the suit holding the

respondent/plaintiff entitled to voluntary retirement.


4.           No substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC

for this appeal to be entertained, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving

the parties to bear their own costs.




JULY 08, 2014                                 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne