RISHI RAM Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been praying for direction to the respondents to pay all the retirement benefits including pension, etc. to which the petitioner is entitled under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme vide circular No.ADM-1-5(41 )/93 dated 3.3.1993 and also quashing of circular No.PC/96/307 dated 2.4.1996.

(2.) The say of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed for the post of Trainee Conductors in respondent corporation and that on completion of the probation period, the petitioner started rendering his services as conductor; that on 3.3.1993, the respondents issued a circular bearing Memo No.ADM-1-5 (41)/93 dated 3.3.1993 relating to Voluntary Retirement Scheme along with a proforma; that as per the said circular, the eligibility for the voluntary retirement was the completion of 10 years service or who have attained the age of 40 years and that such eligible candidates shall get pension benefits as per office .order No. 16 dated 27.11.1992; that the respondents invited application in prescribed form from desirous candidates within 15 days from the date of the notice; that the petitioner being eligible moved an application dated 17.3.1993 for grant of permission to voluntary retire; that vide letter No. H & D-ll/Cond/V.R.S/93/1618 dated 30.4.1993, the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was accepted and accordingly, the petitioner stood retired from the service of the corporation under the Scheme of voluntary retirement with effect from 30.4.1993; that on the said date, the petitioner was also issued a cheque for Rs.42,465.20 paise which included the payment towards ex-gratia encashment of accumulative/ refused leave, notice salary, gratuity, etc; that after the retirement of the petitioner from the services of the respondent corporation on 30.4.1993, the respondents issued another circular No.PC/96/307 dated 2.4.1996 according to which the petitioner was held disentitled for the pension as the qualifying service of the petitioner is less than 20 years as per the CCS Pension Rules and hence the petitioner is not covered under the pension scheme; that on the basis of the said circular dated 2.4.1996, the petitioner was informed that as he had not completed 20 years of qualifying service, he is not covered under the pension scheme under the circular No.PC/96/307 dated 2.4.1996; that vide communication No. H & D-ll/Sect/95/2555 dated 30.8.1996, the Depot Manager informed the petitioner that the cheque of difference of ex-gratia, gratuity, etc. was ready for onward payment to him and, therefore, he should collect the same. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the circular dated 2.4.1996 as malafide, uonstitutional, arbitrary and discriminatory also contending that the respondents have no right to enforce circular dated 2.4.1996 with retrospective effect from 30.4.1993 when the petitioner stood retired voluntary under the then Voluntary Retirement Scheme dated 3.3.1993 and 16.3.1993.

(3.) The respondents filed counter affidavit. They do not dispute the averments of the petitioner but only contended that against the judgment dated 19.9.1997 in C.W. 4216/94 in the case of Jagpal Singh Vs. DTC, Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the respondent corporation and that the Division Bench has stayed the operation of the judgment passed by the Single Judge and that the LPAs are pending final hearing.