DTC RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition was filed by the DTC Retired Employees Association through its Chairman beside three individuals S/Shri Hari Singh, R.R.Sharma and Sansar Chand. The main relief sought in this petition is that the respondent Delhi Transport Corporation (in short DTC) vide order No.16 dated 27th November, 1992 introduced pension scheme for its employees retiring on or after 3rd August, 1981 on the same pattern as applicable to the Central Government employees.

(2.) That when the said scheme was not implemented inspite of the assurance given to the Supreme Court, the petitioners filed contempt proceedings in the Supreme Court. During these proceedings the DTC implemented the pension scheme. However, according to petitioners the same is rendered ineffective because the DTC adopted unreasonable and illegal stand thereby asking the petitioners to pay interest on the amount of employer's contribution paid to the retired employees. The employees are prepared to refund the employer's contribution but not the interest. According to them the DTC is not entitled to charge interest on the same. Similarly, DTC's insistence on payment of interest on excess amount of gratuity due to be refunded by the employees is also illegal. Because DTC is not paying any interest on the amount of arrears of pension withheld by it beside on the amount of commuted value of pension which became due to the petitioners and other similarly situated retired officials of the DTC. The respondent DTC has neither indicated the rate of interest to be charged on the amount of employer's contribution/excess gratuity to be refunded nor DTC has issued any payment order to most of the retired employees. Even no details have been given as to how the amount of pension was arrived at. In fact the pension had been deprived to the retired employees because of the insistence of the DTC to deposit the interest on the amount to be refunded i.e. on employer's contribution/excess gratuity. Thus, according to the petitioners they are not liable to pay interest on the amount of employer's contribution of Provident Fund as also on the excess amount of gratuity which the petitioners are to refund on their having opted for pension scheme. It is in this background that the demand of the respondent/DTC of interest has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) DTC took the preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition by DTC Retired Employees Association which according to the respondent does not exist. Few retired employees cannot get together and form an Association. Each individual's case vary. Considering the objection raised by the respondent and the fact that each individual who is aggrieved has to plead his own case, this Court vide order dated 4th September, 1997 held that the petitioner No.1 had no locus standi. All those retired employees who are aggrieved have to file their writ petition individually. The Association is not the representative of all the retired employees. Moreover, facts of each case are different. Hence, petition by petitioner No.1 is not maintainable.