ASHOK KUMAR DABAS (DEAD THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS) versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

Citation: [2025] 12 S.C.R. 548 · Decided: 09-12-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJESH BINDAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 12 S.C.R. 548 : 2025 INSC 1404
Ashok Kumar Dabas  
(Dead Through Legal Heirs) 
v. 
Delhi Transport Corporation
(Civil Appeal No. 14660 of 2025)
09 December 2025
[Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court has upheld the orders passed by the Tribunal by 
which the claim of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, 
for release of the pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, 
was declined.
Headnotes†
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 – rr.26, 36, 48, 
48A – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 – s.4 – The deceased 
employee/AK was selected and joined the Corporation in the 
year 1985 – He resigned from the job on 07.08.2014 – His 
resignation was accepted on 19.09.2014 – This was the end 
of his employment with the Corporation – The issue raised 
before this Court is regarding his entitlement to pension, 
gratuity and leave encashment:
Held: In the case in hand, admittedly the deceased employee 
resigned from service on 07.08.2014, which was accepted by 
the competent authority on 19.09.2014 – The withdrawal of the 
resignation after acceptance was declined by the competent 
authority on 28.04.2015 – Meaning thereby, it is clear that the 
deceased employee had resigned from service and his withdrawal 
from resignation was not accepted – It is settled law that on 
resignation, past service of an employee stands forfeited – Hence, 
he will not be entitled to any pension – As far as payment of 
gratuity to the legal heirs of deceased employee are concerned, 
a perusal of s.4 of the Act 1972, clearly shows that an employee 
who had rendered not less than five years of service will be entitled 
to payment of gratuity, regardless of the fact that he had retired 
or resigned from service – There is no dispute on the fact that 
* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 
549
Ashok Kumar Dabas (Dead Through Legal Heirs) v.  
Delhi Transport Corporation
in terms of s.5 of the 1972 Act there is no notification issued by 
the appropriate government exempting the Corporation from the 
application of the 1972 Act – Hence, the appellant is entitled to 
receive gratuity in terms of the 1972 Act for the service rendered by 
him – Insofar as payment of emoluments towards leave encashment 
is concerned, the respondent had submitted that amount due to 
the deceased employee shall be paid to his family members – 
The amount due to the deceased employee directed to be paid 
along with interest @6 % p.a. from the date of his resignation till 
payment. [Paras 9.1, 9.6, 10, 10.1, 10.2, 11, 12]
Case Law Cited
BSES Yamuna Power Limited v. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma and 
Another, 2019 INSC 1324 : [2019] 14 SCR 546 : (2020) 3 SCC 
346; Reserve Bank of India and Another v. Cecil Dennis Solomon 
and Another, 2003 INSC 688 : [2003] Supp. 6 SCR 465 : (2004) 
9 SCC 461; Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India & Others, 
2014 INSC 1045 : [2014] 13 SCR 868 : (2014) 16 SCC 260; Shanti 
Devi v. Delhi Transport Corporation, W.P.(C)No.4871/2010 decided 
on 15.10.2012; Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ram Kishan, W.P.(C)
No.2627/2015 decided on 17.03.2015 – referred to.
Raj Kumar v. Union of India and Others, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 
10877 : 2017:DHC:5783-DB – referred to.
List of Acts
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972; Central Civil Services (Pension) 
Rules, 1972.
List of Keywords
Service Law; Employee; Resignation; Leave encashment; Gratuity; 
Pension; Payment of gratuity; Past service.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 14660  
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.12.2022 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in WP(C) No. 13642 of 2018
550
[2025] 12 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Anil Mittal, Narender Kumar Verma.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Aviral Saxena, Abhinav Sharma, Paritosh Goyal.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Rajesh Bindal, J.
1.	
Leave granted.
2.	
The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order1 
passed by the Division Bench of the High Court2. The High Court 
has upheld the orders3 passed by the Tribunal4 by which the claim 
of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant, for release of the 
pensionary benefits of the deceased employee, was declined.
3.	
Briefly, the facts as available on record are that the deceased 
appellant/Ashok Kumar Dabas was selected and appointed as 
conductor with the respondent/Corporation5 in the year 1985. Vide 
Office Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992 a new pension scheme
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.