CoA set aside a Central Administrative Tribunal order regarding pension entitlement for an employee with 14 years at DDA and 6 years at Delhi Jal Board, fixing total tenure at 20 years.
The Tribunal order dated 5.7.2010 is set aside; Respondent to be entitled to 20 years' qualifying period for pension split between DDA and Delhi Jal Board.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Signature Not Verified Signed By:RAM DATT Signing Date:09.09.2024 16:54 OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.
?
'F IN TI{E HIGI{ COUTTT OF' DELtr{I AT' NE,W DEI.Iil
MCD
..... Petitioner
Tbrough: Mr.GaurangI(anth, Advocate
VETSUS
JEET SINGH AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr.S.K.Anand, Advfor R-1. Mr.Ankul Raj and Mr.Sumeet Pushkama Adv. for R-2/DJB. Mr.Arun Birbal, Adv forDDA.
COR,AM: I{ON'BI-,E TIIE CI{IEF JUSTICE
.T{ON'EI,E MR. JUSTICE SANJIVKIIANNA
.oh
ORDER
11.08.2011
Questioningthe legal validityof the order dated 5.7.2010passed by : the Central.Administrative Tribunal, PrincipalBench,New Delhi (for short 'the tribunal') in T.A. No.102612009,the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has prefened this rvrit petition under Article 226 and227of the Constitution of India.
The claim put forth by the respondent and the standasseftedby the
lo
Municipal Corporation of Delhi before the tribunal need not be refered to at ali as the factual matrix is extremely peculiar and, in fact, created a situation w,hich could not have been solved without the cooperation of the authorities.
Keeping the sarne in view, this courl on29.7.2011 had passed the following order.
1' Heard A{r.Gaurang l(anth, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Jitender Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr.Arun Birbal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. '
Let the matter be listed on llth August, 2OTI.
On that date the Director (personnel) of the MCD and' the Chief Engineer. (Wor-lcCharge (Estt.)) of the Delhi Development Authority shall remain personally present at 2:I5 p.m. The respondent No.l Jeet Singh shall also remain personally present.
The petitioner is directed to effect sei-vice dasti on the respondent No.l indicating the order passed by this Court today.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.',
In pursuance of the above order, the authorities, narnely, Mr. Sushil Kumar (Director, Work-Charge) of DDA, Mr.Prakash Chand (Assistant Commissioner) of Delhi Jal Board and Mr.A.I(.Singh (Deputy Cornrrissioner) of MCD are present. The respondent Jeet Singh is also
))
. present.
In the.course of hearing, learned counsel'for theparties, after obtaining instructions fiom their respective authorities and 1&.S.I(.Anancl, learned counsel for the respondent No.l fairly agreed that the respondent No.1 shall only be entitled to pension keeping in view the qualiffing period of service at 20 years and not beyond that.
It is worth noting that the respondent No.1 has rendered service for 14 years in the Delhi Development Authority. As agreed to, the contribution of the DDA in respect of the pension shall be for the said period and the same .shall be rernittedto DelhiJal Board if not already done. As far as Delhi Jal Board is concerned, it shall bear the burden for six years. The pay scale whatever drawn by him on expiry of 20 years corlllnencing 1979 shall be computed. As the respondent No.l has been superamuated, the last employer', namely, Delhi Jal Board shall remit the anears of pension by way of a bank draft in favour of the respondent No.l within two rnonths and, thereafter, extend the benefit of pension every month.
Before parting with the case, we must record our appreciation for the cooperation extended by the authorities of Delhi Developrnent Authority and the Delhi Jal Board and Mr.Pushkarna, Mr.Arun Birbal, Mr.Ankul Raj appearing for the said authorities because in a case of this nature when the
)z_
petitioner submitted that he had been rnakingendeavours to join the respondent No.1 and DelhiJal Boardhas put forth the stancethat he did not come to join. We rnust state withoutany reservation that the authorities lealized the plight of the employeeand ignored the fault or the negligence. Be that as'it ffi&y, the affirmativeattitude shown by all the concernedis appreciated.
The writ petition is disposedof in the above terms and, accordingly, the order passed by the tribunalis set aside.No order as to costs.
s//h CIIIEF J{JSTICE
so0/sA.NJrV KFr.A.I{NA,J
AUGUST 1"L,20LL/sv
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order regarding the pension entitlement of an employee transferring between Delhi Development Authority and Delhi Jal Board requires quashing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MCD
Jeet Singh
Hon'ble The Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
