SATYAVIR SINGH Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a former employee of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) opted for voluntary retirement in May 1995; his request was accepted. His claim in these proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for a direction to the DTC to release pension.

(2.) The petitioner joined as a daily wage employee, of DTCC, on 6-3-1984. He was admitted to regular/monthly wage employment in September, 1984. When he was working, the DTC sought to introduce a pension scheme for the first time, in the year, 1992, by an office order dated 27-11-1992 (â the schemeâ ). As per the scheme, the date of effect was to be 3-8-1991, and all employees working after that date had the option to join the pension scheme. Clause 9 of the scheme reads as follows:

(3.) The DTC introduced a voluntary retirement scheme (1993 VRS) on 3-3-1993. Clause 4 of the 1993-VRS outlined the benefits available to those opting under it. The benefits included balance of PF amounts; gratuity, leave encashment; three monthsâ pay and ex-gratia payments equal to 1-1/2 monthsâ basic pay for each completed year of service, plus DA limited to one monthsâ salary, multiplied by the number of years left in service. Pension benefits as per the scheme were also admissible. The interpretation of this scheme, and eligibility of employees, to pension, was considered in the judgment reported as Jagpal Singh â vs- DTC 1997 (70) DLT 435. The court had held, in that decision that the stand of DTC, that pension benefits under the 1992 scheme were optional/ an alternatives, could not be countenanced, and that it amounted to a fraud on the retiring employee who had applied for voluntary retirement. The 1992 pension scheme was also construed, and held to mean that all those in employment, in 1992, who did not opt, or whose options were defective, could not be denied pension, after luring them to accept VRS, which meant that they retired before their normal date of superannuation.