D.T.C. RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ETC.

Citation: [2001] 3 S.C.R. 559 · Decided: 08-05-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

D.T.C. RETIRED EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION 
A 
-
AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
~ 
v. 
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ETC. 
MAY 8, 2001 
B 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
,,/.. 
Service Law : 
Delhi Transport Corporation. Pension Scheme, 1992 
c 
Clause 6-Pension Scheme-Applicability of-Retired Employees-
... 
Already availed of benefit of Provident Fund Scheme-Option for Pension 
Scheme-Provision requiring refund of employers share of Provident Fund 
and Gratuity with interest-Held, valid-Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 
D 
Clause 9-Pension Scheme-Employees retiring on or after 3.8.1981 
but before 27.11.1992-0J- tion not exercised within the stipulated period-
Effect of-Held, not entitled to benefit of Pension Scheme. 
Respondent-Transport Corporation introduced a pension Scheme on 
27.11.1992 for its retired employees stipulating that all employees of the E 
Corporation retiring on or after 3.8.1981 were to be covered for the purpose 
of pensionary benefit after exercising their option. It further provided that 
the retired employees opting for pension scheme had to refund the employer's 
share of provident fund and gratuity with interest. Those employees who 
joined the service of the Corporation with effect from 27.11.1992 and F 
thereafter had no option but to be compulsorily covered under the pension 
scheme. However, due to some financial difficulties, the pension scheme could 
not be implemented in time. Thus, several writ petitions were filed in the 
High Court by employees' Association for implementation of the scheme. 
Writ Petition filed by retired employees challenging the requirement of refund 
_.. 
of employer's share of provident fund with interest and refund of gratuity G 
were dismissed by High Court. Some of the retired employees of the 
Corporation who had not exercised their option \\ithin the stipulated period 
filed writ petitions contending that in view of clause 9 of the scheme even 
if they had not exercised their option they would be deemed to have exercised 
their option and thus entitled to get pension. The said writ petitions were H 
559 
560 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 
A allowed by Single Judge of High Court. However, on appeal, Division Bench 
... 
of High Court held that the employees who retired between 3.8.1981 and 
--I--
27.11.1992 and had not exercised their option within the stipulated period 
were not entitled to pension under the scheme. Hence the present appeals. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that in view of Clause 9 
B of the Pension Scheme all the employees of the Corporation who retired on 
or after 3.8.1981 were entitled to get pension under the scheme whether they 
had exercised their option or not; that the Corporation was not entitled to 
charge interest on the employer's share of provident fund which was required 
~ 
to be refunded by employees who subsequently wanted to opt for the pension 
c scheme; that the High Court's directio~ to refund the gratuity paid to the 
employees who had opted for pension scheme is illegal in view of section 4(5) 
of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 
·-
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
D 
HELD : 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court was perfectly justified 
in holding that the employees who retired on or after 3.8.1981 but before 
27.11.1992 and had not exercised their option within the stipulated period 
or within the extended period, were not entitled to pension under the scheme. 
)<: 
[565-B] 
E 
1.2. The employees who had retired by the time the pension scheme was 
introduced and had availed of the benefit under the Provident Fund Scheme 
were liable to refund the employer's share of provident fund with interest 
thereon, if they wanted to opt for the pension scheme. On the contrary, some 
such retired employees might not have been interested in refunding the money 
?<. 
F 
received by them and having utilised such amount would also find it difficult 
to raise the funds for repayment It cannot be assumed that they are bound 
by the scheme and would automatically come under its puniew. The pension 
scheme cannot be thrust upon such employees even if it may,primafacie, 
be beneficial to them. However, as regards the existing employees as on 
27.11.1992, the employer could always ask them to exercise their option 
G within a stipulated period and if they failed to exercise their option within 
'-. 
a stipulated period, the deeming provision can be invoked and it could be said 
that they are covered by the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.