SHEELA Vs. CHAIRMAN, DTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the judgment dated 16.8.2005 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissing the appeal of the appellant bearing R.C.A. No. 76/2004. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that a substantial question of law arising from the present appeal is with regard to the interpretation of Clause 9 of the Pension Scheme, Delhi Transport Corporation, applicable to the Central Government employees. The learned counsel has submitted that this court vide order dated 7.2.2011 had permitted the appellant to file a fresh representation in the light of Clause 9 of the aforesaid Scheme to the respondent and the latter was directed to consider the said representation sympathetically. It is contended that despite this direction, the representation has been rejected without considering the fact that the appellant is covered by Clause 9 and is entitled to Pension Scheme. It has now been urged that in terms of Clause 9, the appellant's husband, who was an employee of the respondent, having not been able to exercise the option in terms of the Scheme and admittedly having died, the appellant is prepared to refund the contribution given by the employer and she may be permitted to avail all the benefits of the Pension Scheme of the respondent.

(2.) THIS prayer has been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, who has contended that there is no question of law involved in the matter, much less substantial question of law. It is contended that the question of interpretation of Clause 9 and various other provisions of the Pension Scheme have undergone judicial scrutiny right up to the Apex Court which has culminated into a judgment titled DTC Retired Employees' Association & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation; : JT 2001 (Suppl. 1) SC 144 wherein a categorical observation has been passed by the Apex Court that so far as Clause 9 is concerned, it is applicable only to the existing employees, who were on the rolls when the Scheme was implemented.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the husband of the appellant was an employee of the respondent and he had died on 24.7.1984. The Pension Scheme was notified by the respondent on 27.11.1992. Before the implementation of the Pension Scheme, the respondent's employees were covered by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The Pension Scheme was brought into operation with effect from 3.8.1981. It was observed in Clause 4 that the scheme would be compulsory for all new employees joining DTC with effect from 23.11.1992, that is, the date of sanctioning of the Scheme. Clause 6 laid down that the employees, who have retired on or after 3.8.1981 and the existing employees, who have drawn the employer's share under the E.P.F. Act partly or wholly shall have to refund the same with interest in the event of their opting for the Pension Scheme. The total amount to be refunded by the retired employees/existing employees would be the amount that would have accrued, had they not withdrawn the employer's share. The relevant clause which is in issue is Clause 9 which reads as under: -