Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Mool Chand
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.7258 of 2002
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2301, 2302/2007
[From the final Judgment dated 6.11.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 62 of 2001]
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2301, 2302/2007
[From the final Judgment dated 6.11.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 62 of 2001]
Petitioner: Delhi Transport Corporation
Respondent: Mool Chand
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.7258 of 2002
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2301, 2302/2007
[From the final Judgment dated 6.11.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 62 of 2001]
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 2301, 2302/2007
[From the final Judgment dated 6.11.2001 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in L.P.A. No. 62 of 2001]
Judges: Markandey Katju & Aftab Alam, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 02, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. S.B. Sanyal, Senior Advocate, Ms. A. Subhashini, Mr. Sunil Dalal, Mr. Jay Kishore Singh (for Mr. Subramonium Prasad), Mr. B.D. Sharma, Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mrs. Amita Kalkal (for Mrs. Lalita Kaushik) Advocates, with him for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
Service and Labour Laws
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 226, 14, 16 – Scheme of VRS – Earlier scheme had provision of pension – New scheme in 1995 – Employees opting for VRS under new scheme, not entitled to pension – Employee opting under new scheme – High Court still held that he was entitled to pension. Held that judgment is erroneous and is set aside. (Paras 2-4)
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 226, 14, 16 – Scheme of VRS – Earlier scheme had provision of pension – New scheme in 1995 – Employees opting for VRS under new scheme, not entitled to pension – Employee opting under new scheme – High Court still held that he was entitled to pension. Held that judgment is erroneous and is set aside. (Paras 2-4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 06th November, 2001. It appears that there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short ‘VRS’) in the Delhi Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’, in 1993 which contained a provision for pension. The respondent herein did not apply under that VRS Scheme.
2. Subsequently, the Corporation framed a new Scheme dated 13.12.1995 in which it was specifically stated that those employees who opt for VRS under the new Scheme will not get pension. Respondent, admittedly, applied under this scheme.
3. Since, there was a specific provision in the VRS Scheme dated 13.12.1995, we fail to see how the High Court has held that the respondent will get pension in addition to VRS benefits.
4. In view of above, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and it is hereby set aside.
5. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to costs.
Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals has stated that in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 12th March, 2007 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4135 of 2007, these appeals may be dismissed. We order accordingly.
1. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 06th November, 2001. It appears that there was a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (for short ‘VRS’) in the Delhi Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Corporation’, in 1993 which contained a provision for pension. The respondent herein did not apply under that VRS Scheme.
2. Subsequently, the Corporation framed a new Scheme dated 13.12.1995 in which it was specifically stated that those employees who opt for VRS under the new Scheme will not get pension. Respondent, admittedly, applied under this scheme.
3. Since, there was a specific provision in the VRS Scheme dated 13.12.1995, we fail to see how the High Court has held that the respondent will get pension in addition to VRS benefits.
4. In view of above, we find that the impugned judgment of the High Court is erroneous and it is hereby set aside.
5. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to costs.
Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in these appeals has stated that in view of the earlier order of this Court dated 12th March, 2007 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4135 of 2007, these appeals may be dismissed. We order accordingly.
