LexKARAN SINGH versus DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017) 8 S.C.R. 675 KARAN SINGH v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 12743 of 2017) SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 (A.K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.I A B · Service law - Pension and other benefits - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Scheme floated by the respondent-corporation whereby employees who had 10 years of service and 40 years of C age were granted option for voluntary retirement - Appellant submitted his application for voluntary retirement which was allowed - He was made various payments as per the scheme but no order for pension was passed on the ground that he did not qualify for pension - Held: The qualifying service after adding the training period and deducting 98 days on account of leave without pay, D came to 9 years, 10 months and 11 days - The appellant placed the photocopy of Jhe savice-book which contained the details of his leave - There was no mention in the leave account that leave without pay shall be treated as disruption in service - The question whether period of leave without pay is to be counted as qualij)'ing service E for pension, is pending before the larger bench in Balwan Singh case - In the interest of justice, it is held appropriate to await the ·decision in Balwan Singh case - Appeal to be listed after disposal of Balwan Singh case. DTC v. Ba/wan Singh in CA. No.7159 of 2014 dated 19.11.2016; DTC v. Lillu Ram 2017 (11) SCALE 588- referred to. Case Law Reference 2017 (11) SCALE 588 referred to Para4 F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.12743 G of2017. From the Impugned Order dated 15.03.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.7662 of2015. 675 H 676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 8 S.C.R. A Karan Singh (Petitioner-in-person). AvnishAhlawat, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Ms. Nivedha Nair, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B ASH OK BHUSHAN, J. 1. The appellant who appears in person has come up in the appeal against judgment dated 15.03.2016 in Writ Petition (C) No.7662 of2015 of Delhi High Court by which judgment Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition of Delhi Transport Corporation by setting aside the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Central . C Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the Tribunal has directed the Delhi Transport Corporation to pay the appellant pension and other benefits in accordance with the Pension Scheme issued by the DTC vide their Office Order dated 27.11.1992 read with YRS, 1993. 2. By Memo dated 09.02.1983, the appellant was directed to report T.S. Training School, IPD for training on 10.02.1983 for the post of D Retainer Crew or Conductor. The appellant underwent training from 15.03.1983 to 26.05.1983. The appellant was offered appointment by order dated 24.05 .1983 after qualifying the written test held on 13 .05 .1983 for the post of Conductor with effect from27.05.1983. The appointment letter dated 25.05.1983 was issued appointing the appellant as Retainer E Crew with effect from27.05.1983. On 27.11.1983 he was given regular appointment as monthly rate Conductor w.e.f. 27.11.1983. The Delhi Transport Corporation floated voluntary retirement scheme by circular dated 03 .03 .1993. Those employees who had IO years of service and 40 years of age were entitled to opt for voluntary retirement. The appellant submitted his application for voluntary retirement which was allowed by F letter dated 30.04.1993. The appellant was made various payments as per scheme but no order for pension was passed. 3. A writ petition was filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to make payment of pension. The writ petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal and was allowed by G order dated 09.08.2011 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the respondent having accepted voluntary retirement of the appellant on the ground that he has completed 10 years of service, now, this is too late to say for the Corporation not to make payment of pension on the ground that he has not completed 10 years of qualifying service. Against the H KARAN SINGH v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION 677 [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] order of the Tribunal a writ petition was filed in the High Court by the A Corporation. The writ petition was allowed by the Delhi High Court by judgment and order dated 29.05.2013. The High Court held that ifthe service of the appellant is reckoned fro
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.