DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION versus BALWAN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 4 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 26-02-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  4  S.C.R.
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
         BALWAN SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014)
FEBRUARY 26, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 – rr.3(1)(q), 21,
27, 28, 49(1) – Respondents, ex-employees of the appellant-
Corporation, governed by the Employees Contributory Provident
Fund Scheme – Introduction of pension scheme as per Office Order
dtd. 27.11.1992 – Announcement of Voluntary Retirement Scheme
(VRS) in 1993 – In order to avail this Scheme, the eligibility conditions
required an employee to have completed 10 years of service in the
appellant, or completed 40 years of age – Sub-clause (g) of Clause
4 of the Scheme provided for pensionary benefits as per Office
Order dtd. 27.11.1992 – Respondents availed VRS – Held disentitled
to pension on account of exclusion of period when they remained
absent without authorisation, for which period they were held not
entitled to salary – In Lillu Ram’s case such exclusion was upheld
– Reconsideration by larger Bench – Held: VRS itself, more
specifically Clause(g), makes Pension Rules applicable– r.21 is clear,
i.e.”all leave during service for which leave salary is payable” would
count – If an employee is not paid for leave, that period has to be
excluded from the period to be counted for admissibility of pension
– r.3(1)(q), while defining “qualifying service” provides for service
rendered while on duty “or otherwise which shall be taken into
account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under
these rules”– Thus, the period of leave for which leave salary is
not payable would be excluded – Rule is crystal clear and does not
brook any two interpretations – Pension Scheme was sought to be
introduced only couple of months before the VRS – It was ultimately
implemented by the appellant, much later in 1995 – Thus, the
occasion for making any entries for this leave period in the service
record, in terms of the Rules did not even arise at the stage when
the VRS was applied – To avail the benefit of Pension Rules, an
[2019] 4  S.C.R. 532
                                                  532
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
533
employee must qualify in terms of the Rules– Respondents do not
do so, as the period sought to be excluded from their qualifying
service is one where they were admittedly not paid leave salary –
Qualifying period for the VRS would have to be governed by that
Scheme and cannot ipso facto be imported into the entitlement of
pension, contrary to the plain wordings of the Pension Rules –
Pension Rules came into force much later, though the intention was
announced just before the VRS – Respondents were not governed
by these Rules, but by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme – Result may be the same as in Lillu Ram’s case, reasoning
is slightly different from that view – Impugned order set aside –
Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The VRS itself, more specifically clause (g),
makes these very Rules applicable. Rule 21 is quite clear in its
terms, i.e., “all leave during service for which leave salary is
payable” would count.  The corollary is that if an employee is not
paid for leave, that period has to be excluded from the period to
be counted for admissibility of pension.  Rule 3(1)(q), while
defining “qualifying service” provides for service rendered while
on duty “or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the
purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules.”
Thus, the period of leave for which salary is payable would be
taken into account for determining the pensionable service, while
the period for which leave salary is not payable would be excluded.
The Rule is crystal clear and does not brook any two
interpretations. When the words of a statute are clear and
unambiguous, there cannot be a recourse to any principle of
interpretation other than the rule of literal construction. The
endeavour to refer to Rules 27 & 28 of the Pension Rules is of
no avail, as those are dealing with the effect of interruption in
service which may result in forfeiture of past service.  In the
present case, there has been no forfeiture of past service.
[Paras 20, 21][542-G, H; 543-A-C]
1.2 Insofar as the Government decision dated 28.2.1976 is
concerned, that elucidates the requirement of a prompt entry
into the service record, but this certainly cannot supersede the
DELH

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