Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Delhi Transport Corporation vs Rajvir Singh
2016 Latest Caselaw 7371 Del

Citation : 2016 Latest Caselaw 7371 Del
Judgement Date : 9 December, 2016

Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Rajvir Singh on 9 December, 2016
$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                          W.P.(C) 11600/2016

                                     Date of decision: 9th December, 2016

     DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION                ..... Petitioner
                  Through   Mr. Sarfarz Khan and Mr. Ataur
                  Rahman, Advocates.

                           Versus
     RAJVIR SINGH                                         ..... Respondent
                           Through   Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR


     SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

The order under challenge passed by the Principal Bench of the

Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12th July, 2016 allows

OA No. 4230/2011 filed by Rajvir Singh, the respondent before us

with a direction that he should be paid pension and other retirement

benefits within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Delhi Transport Corporation, the petitioner has been also directed to

pay interest as applicable to General Provident Fund on the arrears

from the date of retirement i.e. 30th November, 2010, till actual

payment.

2. It is an accepted case that employees of the petitioner

Corporation were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund

Scheme prior to 27th November, 1992. By office order No. 16 dated

27th November, 1992, pension scheme by default became applicable

to all employees with effect from 3rd August, 1981. Existing

employees, including those who retired with effect from 3 rd August,

1981, had to make specific request within the stipulated time to opt

out of the pension scheme and to be governed by the Contributory

Provident Fund Scheme.

3. The short question raised before us is whether the respondent had

opted out of the pension scheme to be governed by the Contributory

Provident Fund Scheme and, therefore, is not eligible for pension.

4. The petitioner Corporation does not have and would not rely

upon any written request by the respondent-Rajvir Singh to opt out of

the pension scheme and to be governed by the Contributory Provident

Fund Scheme. The petitioner Corporation, on the other hand, relies

upon an indirect evidence in the form of recordings in the service

book that the respondent had not opted for pension wherein alphabet

'N' instead of alphabet 'S' was written/recorded. Alphabet 'N', it is

stated, means none and 'S' means pension optee.

5. The Tribunal in the impugned order records dual or conflicting

entries in the service book on whether the respondent had opted out of

pension scheme. At another place in the service book it is recorded

that the respondent had opted for pension scheme. The respondent

has been protesting that he had never opted out of the pension

scheme. He had written representations in 2004 i.e. nearly 5-6 years

before his retirement. In response to the said representations, the

Depot Manager (Rohini-II) had issued memorandum dated 1st June,

2007 that the respondent was covered by the pension scheme. Before

the retirement of the respondent, the petitioner Corporation had

written the letter dated 3rd June, 2010 recording that the respondent

had opted for pension. Similar assertion is to be found in the second

letter of the petitioner Corporation dated 24th November, 2011, while

making payment of gratuity.

6. In view of the aforesaid conflicting position and noticing the

fact that an employee had to opt out of the pension and by default

pension was payable, we are not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order.

7. The petitioner Corporation is required to maintain its records.

They have failed to file even a single communication or letter by the

respondent to show that he had opted out of the pension scheme. It

will be wrong and incorrect to deny pension to the respondent on any

assumption. There is contradiction in the service book and hence,

benefit must go to the respondent. The petitioner Corporation must

realize that being the custodian of the records, they are required and

should have maintained their records properly and were it so, this

complication or difficulty would not have arisen.

8. The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

DECEMBER 09, 2016 NA

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter