Delhi High Court
S.C. Chugh vs N.T.P.C. And Ors on 15 February, 2018
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Order: February 15, 2018
+ W.P.(C) 2582/2014
S.C. CHUGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pradeep Gupta, Mr.Parihav Gupta,
Ms.Mansi Gupta and Mr.Moazzam Ali,
Advocates
versus
N.T.P.C. AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Rajesh Gupta, Advocate for R-1
Mr.Ruchir Mishra, Mr.Abhishek Rana and
Mr.Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocates for
R-2 to R-4
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Petitioner, upon his absorption in respondent-NTPC had retired in the
year 1997 and had received the terminal benefits. It is so evident from letter
of 17th December, 1997. It is matter of record that petitioner had approached
Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to declare him as a Central
Government employee but was unsuccessful and the Division Bench of this
Court vide order of 2nd August, 2010 (Annexure P-10) in W.P.(C)
No.1785/2004 has confirmed that petitioner was permanently absorbed in
NTPC with effect from 1st April, 1978. However, in the first round of
litigation, the question of counting of petitioner's service in Central
W.P.(C)No.2582/2014 Page 1
Government was not subject matter of consideration and for the first time
petitioner had raised this claim vide demand notice of 6th June, 2013
(Annexure P-12) and this demand notice was addressed to respondent-UOI
as well. It is the case of petitioner that the said demand notice was replied to
by respondent-NTPC vide impugned communication of 21st June, 2013
(Annexure P-1) wherein the question of counting past service towards
pension has not been considered.
2. Be that as it may. The reliance placed by petitioner's counsel upon
Office Memorandum of 13th January, 1986 (Annexure P-3) is required to be
considered by respondent-UOI which has not been done. No counter to this
writ petition by respondent-UOI has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was declared
quasi-permanent employee by respondent-UOI on 29th April, 1970 but he
has rendered service as an Instructor on temporary basis since the year 1967.
Learned counsel for petitioner had sought to place reliance upon a decision
of Supreme Court to assert that the service rendered on ad-hoc basis or on
work charge basis is to be counted for terminal benefits. It is the stand of
respondent-NTPC that the terminal benefits have been already released to
petitioner in December, 1997 which he has accepted and so, no pension is
payable by respondent-NTPC. Attention of this Court has been drawn by
counsel for NTPC to counter affidavit filed by NTPC to point out that
petitioner's service upto the year 1989 was taken into consideration and
employer's share of the provident fund with 6% simple interest on it was
transferred by his parent department to petitioner's provident fund account
so that petitioner gets its benefit at the time of his superannuation. Thus, it
W.P.(C)No.2582/2014 Page 2
is made clear that the relief claimed in this petition survives qua respondent-
UOI only.
4. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to
permit petitioner to make a concise representation to Secretary, Ministry of
Power within two weeks to highlight as to how the case of petitioner falls
within the ambit of Office Memorandum of 13th January, 1986 (Annexure P-
3) and the said representation be considered by the Competent Authority by
passing a speaking order within a period of 12 weeks while considering as to
whether ad-hoc service/temporary service would be counted while
computing period of 10 years to entitle a retired employee to seek pro-rata
pensionary benefits. The fate of the said representation be made known to
petitioner within 2 weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the
remedy as available in law, if need be.
5. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
Dasti.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
mamta
W.P.(C)No.2582/2014 Page 3
