SUDARSHAN KUMAR Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

(2.) In substances the petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of the benefit ofpension which was made available to those who retired from service w.e.f. 3.8.1981under a Scheme introduced by Office Order No.l6 dated 27/11/1992. Inother words, the retrospectivity given to the Scheme was confined to those whoretired only but not extended to those who resigned. An artificial distinction hasbeen made between the persons who retired and those who resigned at a time whenthere was no occasion for the concerned person to opt for retirement or seekretirement in the manner stated in Rule 48 of C.C.S. Pension Rules (for short theRules).

(3.) The petitioner joined the first respondent as a Conductor in the year 1953.Thereafter he was promoted as a Junior Clerk and then as a Senior Clerk. InSeptember, 1975 he was removed from service and this removal was challenged bythe petitioner by raising an industrial dispute. In December 1984 the Labour Courtreinstated the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service afterquashing the order of removal. This was challenged by the respondent-Corporation by filing a writ petition 387 of 1986 but this Court rejected the writ petition inlimine on 20/02/1986.