Dismissed

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajvir Singh

Delhi HC9 Dec 2016W.P.(C)/11600/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the transport corporation's writ petition challenging a Tribunal order mandating pension payment. The court held that with conflicting service book entries favoring the employee, the benefit of the doubt must accrue to the respondent due to the corporation's failure to maintain proper records exempting him.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Tribunal order upholding pension claim allowed; Petitioner to maintain records properly.

Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Rajvir Singh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11600/2016

¶3

Date of decision: 9^th December, 2016

¶4

DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Sarfarz Khan and Mr. Ataur Rahman, Advocates.

¶5

Versus

¶6

RAJVIR SINGH ..... Respondent Through Ms. Kittu Bajaj, Advocate.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶8

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

¶9

The order under challenge passed by the Principal Bench of the

¶10

Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12^th July, 2016 allows OA No. 4230/2011 filed by Rajvir Singh, the respondent before us with a direction that he should be paid pension and other retirement benefits within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Delhi Transport Corporation, the petitioner has been also directed to pay interest as applicable to General Provident Fund on the arrears

¶11

W.P. (C) 11600/2016 Page 1 of 4

¶12

from the date of retirement i.e. 30^th November, 2010, till actual payment.

¶13

It is an accepted case that employees of the petitioner Corporation were governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme prior to 27^th November, 1992. By office order No. 16 dated 27^th November, 1992, pension scheme by default became applicable

¶14

to all employees with effect from 3^rd August, 1981. Existing employees, including those who retired with effect from 3^rd August, 1981, had to make specific request within the stipulated time to opt out of the pension scheme and to be governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.

¶15

The short question raised before us is whether the respondent had opted out of the pension scheme to be governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme and, therefore, is not eligible for pension.

¶16

The petitioner Corporation does not have and would not rely upon any written request by the respondent-Rajvir Singh to opt out of the pension scheme and to be governed by the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The petitioner Corporation, on the other hand, relies upon an indirect evidence in the form of recordings in the service

¶17

W.P. (C) 11600/2016 Page 2 of 4

¶18

book that the respondent had not opted for pension wherein alphabet ‘N’ instead of alphabet ‘S’ was written/recorded. Alphabet ‘N’, it is stated, means none and ‘S’ means pension optee.

¶19

The Tribunal in the impugned order records dual or conflicting

¶20

entries in the service book on whether the respondent had opted out of pension scheme. At another place in the service book it is recorded that the respondent had opted for pension scheme. The respondent has been protesting that he had never opted out of the pension scheme. He had written representations in 2004 i.e. nearly 5-6 years before his retirement. In response to the said representations, the Depot Manager (Rohini-II) had issued memorandum dated 1^st June, 2007 that the respondent was covered by the pension scheme. Before

¶21

the retirement of the respondent, the petitioner Corporation had written the letter dated 3^rd June, 2010 recording that the respondent had opted for pension. Similar assertion is to be found in the second letter of the petitioner Corporation dated 24^th November, 2011, while making payment of gratuity.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid conflicting position and noticing the

¶23

fact that an employee had to opt out of the pension and by default

¶24

W.P. (C) 11600/2016 Page 3 of 4

¶25

pension was payable, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order.

¶26

The petitioner Corporation is required to maintain its records. They have failed to file even a single communication or letter by the respondent to show that he had opted out of the pension scheme. It will be wrong and incorrect to deny pension to the respondent on any assumption. There is contradiction in the service book and hence, benefit must go to the respondent. The petitioner Corporation must realize that being the custodian of the records, they are required and should have maintained their records properly and were it so, this complication or difficulty would not have arisen.

¶27

The writ petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶29

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J.

¶30

DECEMBER 09, 2016 NA

¶31

W.P. (C) 11600/2016 Page 4 of 4

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajvir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Delhi Transport Corporation v. Rajvir Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

UOI & Anr. Vs the Defence Marine Engg. Tech. S

M/S Delhi Tourist Bus Service Vs Dayal Singh

Subhash Chand Dhigan Vs Delhi Development Authority

Shashi Bala Pathak Vs Delhi Development Authority

Ram Kala and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

Trilochan Kaur Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.

N C Jindal Public School Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Jamia Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Association of Medical Faculty in Dental Colleges Vs Medical Council of India and Ors.

Arti Uppal Vs Arvind Uppal

Manoj Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vishnu Shankar Prasad Vs Ministry of Road Transport & Highways and Ors.

Sanjay & Ors. Vs Gnct of Delhi and Anr.

Jamia Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.