MANU/SC/0272/2019

True Court CopyTM English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014

Decided On: 26.02.2019

Appellants: Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Respondent: Balwan Singh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
S.A. Bobde, Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Deepak Gupta

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

1. The Respondents are all ex-employees of the Appellant/Delhi Transport Corporation (for short 'DTC'), who availed of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short 'VRS'). The Respondents have, however, been held disentitled to pension on account of exclusion of period when they remained absent without authorisation for which period they were held not entitled to salary. In D.T.C. v. Lillu Ram,   MANU/SC/1701/2011 : (2017) 11 SCC 407 such exclusion was upheld with the consequence that the ex-employees would not get pensionary benefits, having not completed 10 years of qualifying service. In the present appeal, two Hon'ble Judges of this Court, after examining Lillu Ram's1 case opined that a reconsideration by a larger Bench, of that view, was required. As a sequitur, the present appeal has been placed before us.

2. A perusal of the reference order dated 9.11.2016, shows that the disagreement with the view taken in Lillu Ram1 case emanated on various accounts: (a) if the employee has been sanctioned leave without pay, why such period should be treated as a period of unauthorised absence; (b) non-consideration of relevant Rules such as Rules 27 & 28 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Pension Rules') and FR 17-A of the Fundamental Rules; (c) no adverse effect should be visited on the employee to receive pension, unless given notice by the appropriate authority, by an entry in the service book or through other notice, that his absence will be treated as unauthorised absence and will not be counted towards qualifying service for pension; (d) the VRS is permissible only on completion of 10 years of service and, thus, it may be unjust and harsh to inflict the employee with adverse consequences, in the absence of such notice.

3. The relevant facts for determination of the issue before us are that the employees of the Appellant-Corporation were governed by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. In terms of Office Order No. 16 dated 27.11.1992, the introduction of a pension scheme in DTC as applicable to the Central Government employees was announced, on sanction having been obtained from the Central Government. This pension scheme was to be operated by the LIC on behalf of DTC and the date of effect of the pension scheme was retrospective, w.e.f. 3.8.1981, with the option to the existing employees and those who retired w.e.f. 3.8.1981 to opt for this pension scheme or continue to be governed by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. Prospectively, the pension scheme was to apply compulsorily. The retired employees, however, were required to refund the employer's share under the Employees Provident Fund Act, in the event of t........