SMT. SHAKUNTALA MEHRISHI versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMIITEE AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 01-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. SHAKUNTALA MEHRISHI 
v. 
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMIITEE AND ORS. 
MARCH 1, 1990 
[M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, N.D. OJHA AND 
J.S. VERMA, JJ.] 
Civil Services: Delhi School Education Rules, 1973: Rule 126-
Pension-Employees of aided Schools-Payment of-Directions 
issued. 
The petitioner joined as a primary teacher in 1952 in an aided 
recognised school. She was making contribution towards compulsory 
provident fund. In 1975, the Delhi Administration, in consultation with 
the Accountant General, Central Revenue, issud a notification under 
Rule 126 of the Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, laying down 
detailed procedure for disbursement of pension and gratuity as also 
accounting of General Provident Fund in respect of the employees of 
aided schools. The petitioner opted for the aforesaid scheme in 1976, 
which was duly counter-signed by the Education Officer. 
After the petitfoner retired in 1977, she made a number of rep-
resentations to the authorities concerned for payment of pension and 
gratuity. She got a reply in 1987 that her case had been referred to the 
Government for policy decision. Ultimately, Delhi Administration 
promulgated the pension scheme in the primary aided schools on and 
effective from 6th December, 1988. 
The petitioner in her Writ Petition before this Court relied on the 
scheme announced by the Delhi Administration and the option exer-
cised by her. She claimed that to deprive her of the pension and gratuity 
under the said scheme was without any justification. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the scheme 
was brought into force only in 1988 by the said notification whereby the 
modalities for grant-in-aid to the local authorities were finalised and 
since the petitioner retired from service in 1977, she was not entitled to 
pension prior to the said notification. 
Allowing the Writ Petition, this Conrt, 
HELD: I. The school in which the petitioner was working was an 
753 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990) I S.C.R. 
aided school within the meaning of S. 2(d) of the Delhi Education Act 
and its employees were entitled to the benefits conferred by the notifica· 
lion dated 17th October, 1975. [7578-C) 
2. Since the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 would 
apply to the petitioner as contemplated by notification dated 17th 
October, 1975, she is obviously entitled to get pension with effect from 
the date on which she ceased to be borne on the establishment. of the 
school in which she was working consequent upon reaching the age of 
superannuation. [757F-G) 
3. The said notification having been issued by the competent 
authority and the petitioner, who was an existing employee of an aided 
school on the date of the issue of the said notification, having opted for 
the pension and gratuity within the stipulated period in the prescribed 
proforma which was duly countersigned by the Education Officer, she 
obviously became entitled to the benefits conferred by the said notifica· 
lion. This is so all the more in view of the fact that the notification dated 
17th October, 197 5 did not contemplate finalisation of the modalities 
about contribution towards pension fund as a condition precedent to the 
entitlement of the benefits under the said notification. The finalisation 
of the said modalities was a matter of details among the authorities 
concerned and could have no bearing on the entitlement to the benefits 
of the notification dated 17th October, 1975. Such finalisation could not 
even defer the date of the entitlement. [758A·Cl 
4. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner pension 
admissible to her in pursuance of the notification dated 17th October, 
197 S with effect from the date of her retirement and also to pay to her 
~ 
~
~
y 
the other retirement benefits. They are further directed to finalise the 
· i 
F 
requisite formalities in this behalf within three months and to issue 
payment orders immediately thereafter. [758H; 759A·B) 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
623 of 1989. 
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
H 
Rangarajan and San jay Parekh for the Petitioner. 
G.B. Pai, V.K. Sharma and R.K. Maheshwari for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SMT. SHAKUNTALA v. N.D.M.C. [OJHA, J.l 
755 
OJHA, J, The gravamen of the grievance of the petitioner is that 
A 
even though she retired on 31st October 1977 on reaching the age of 
s•1perann

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