KRISHAN Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this present Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to question the tenability of the orders dated 10.05.2012 and 01.08.2012 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') whereby it dismissed T.A. No.1276/2009 and R.A. No.213/2012 respectively. The main grievance raised by the petitioner is that the learned CAT has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner had opted for pension after taking voluntary retirement after having served the respondentCorporation for about 15 years, but his request was not acceded to by the respondent- Corporation.

(2.) Mr. Anil Mittal, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent- Corporation has failed to pay pension to the petitioner in terms of the pension scheme. Counsel further submits that the petitioner had to marry off his daughter in the month of May, 1995 and therefore, he made a request to the respondent- Corporation on 14.02.1995 to release its share of the Provident Fund as he was in urgent need of money, but the respondent never released its share of the Provident Fund to the petitioner and he had to take the help of his friends and relatives to arrange for funds to get his daughter married. In these circumstances, the petitioner made a request vide letter dated 17.11.1995 for the grant of pension, the extracts of which are reproduced as under:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled legal position that pension is not a bounty given by the employer but is a valuable right of the employee. The counsel further submits that before the petitioner withdrew his option for pension, he had taken VRS w.e.f 30.04.1993 and had opted for pension , since Respondent-Corporation failed to pay pension in terms of the pension scheme and he had to get his daughter married in the month of May, 1995 he requested for the Employer's share of provident fund as he was in need of money, but the Respondent Corporation failed to do so and therefore, it cannot be said that he could not have retracted from his earlier decision particularly when the respondent- Corporation had never released its contribution in his favour. The learned counsel also submits that even till date, the respondent- Corporation has not made any payment towards its share of the Provident Fund.