Full Text
$-14 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: May 29, 2013
JAI PAL SINGH .... Petitioner Represented by: Mr.G.Srivastava, Advocate
Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat and Ms.Latika Choudhary, Advocates
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
JUDGMENT
1. As per the decision pronounced by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 11440/2011, if a person has not completed 10 years service, pension cannot be granted. This is what the Supreme Court had to say in para Nos.22 to 26 of its decision passed in Civil Appeal No.11440/2011, DTC Vs. Lillu Ram which are reproduced as under:-
W P (C) 3665/2013 3 of 5 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”.
2. On the factual aspect of the matter, petitioner relies upon a communication dated February 11, 2011 sent by DTC to him, which records that the petitioner had contributed towards the contributory provident fund for 11 years.
3. We find that in the reply filed by the respondent to the Original Application, in para No.3 it was pleaded as under: “That as per service record the applicant herein availed 538 days leave without pay hence his qualifying year of service is 8 years 03 months and 02 days. The year-wise leave availed by the applicant are as follows: YEAR LEAVE WITHOUT PAY 02.07.1982 to 31.12.1982 NIL 1983 NIL 1984 1 1985 3 1986 1 1987 (17.08.87 to 14.09.87) 29 DAYS UNDER SUSPENSION 1988 11 1989 NIL W P (C) 3665/2013 4 of 5 1990 58 1991 365 01.01.1992 to 19.03.1992 80 TOTAL 509 + 29 (U/S) = 538 DAYS DATE OF RETIREMENT 20.03.1992 DATE OF APPOINTMENT (MONTHLY RATES) 02.07.1982 TOTAL SERVICES 9 YEARS 8 MONTHS 81 DAYS LEAVE WITHOUT PAY 1 YEARS 5 MONTHS 20 DAYS QUALIFYING SERVICES 8 YEARS 3 MONTHS 02 DAYS Hence the applicant herein is not eligible for DTC pension as he had not have minimum ten years of qualifying service which is an essential conditions for the eligibility for the DTC Pension Scheme.”
4. Suffice would it be to note that the qualifying service is 08 years, 03 months and 02 days.
5. Suffice would it be to state that number of years interregnum from date of joining till leaving service need not necessarily be the same as qualifying service. The reason is that such period where an employee remains on leave and for which no pay is paid requires said period to be deducted by computing service for the purpose of W P (C) 3665/2013 5 of 5 pensionary benefits if the period is treated as ‘dies non’.
6. We also find that the writ petition laying a claim for pension was filed after 13 years. The writ petition was registered as W.P.(C) No. 5825/2003 and was transferred to the Tribunal for decision when a notification was issued requiring service disputes pertaining to employees of DTC to be decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition was registered as Transfer Application No.692/2009 which was dismissed on August 11, 2009 against which the writ petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.12656/2009 but restricting prayer to non payment of dues. The petitioner thereafter filed Original Application No.4635/2011 claiming pension; a prayer which in our opinion could not be re-agitated in view of the decision in Transfer Application No.692/2009.
7. We find no merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.
8. No costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE MAY 29, 2013 km