Holding

Clause (g) of the VRS makes the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules applicable, and only leave for which salary is payable counts as qualifying service; thus, the respondents are not entitled to pension.

Summary

The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) allowed its ex‑employees to retire under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in 1993. The respondents, who had taken periods of unauthorised absence/leave without pay, were denied pension benefits because those periods were excluded from qualifying service. The Supreme Court held that Clause (g) of the VRS makes the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 applicable, and that Rule 21 counts only leave for which salary is payable; therefore, leave without pay cannot be counted as qualifying service. Consequently, the respondents do not meet the pension eligibility criteria under the Rules, and the High Court’s order denying pension was set aside. The Court allowed the appeal, ordered costs, and directed that any amounts already paid to the respondents not be reclaimed by DTC.

Issues considered

Whether periods of unauthorised absence or leave without pay should be counted as qualifying service for pension under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Whether the eligibility conditions of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme can be imported to determine pension entitlement.
Whether Rules 27, 28 of the Pension Rules, FR 17‑A of the Fundamental Rules, and Government of India decisions affect the calculation of qualifying service.
Whether employees governed by the Employees’ Contributory Provident Fund Scheme are subject to the Pension Rules for pension benefits.
Interpretation of Rule 21 and Rule 3(1)(q) regarding leave salary payable and qualifying service.

Legislation cited

Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972s. Rule 21, s. Rule 27, s. Rule 28, s. Rule 3(1)(q), s. Rule 49(1)
Employees' Provident Fund Act

Subjects

pensionqualifying servicevoluntary retirement schemeleave without payservice lawstatutory interpretationCentral Civil Services (Pension) RulesEmployees' Contributory Provident Fundunauthorised absence

Judgment

532 [2019]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 4 S.C.R. 532 [2019] 4 S.C.R.

A DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION
v.
BALWAN SINGH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7159 of 2014)
B FEBRUARY 26, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972 – rr.3(1)(q), 21,
27, 28, 49(1) – Respondents, ex-employees of the appellant-
C
Corporation, governed by the Employees Contributory Provident
Fund Scheme – Introduction of pension scheme as per Office Order
dtd. 27.11.1992 – Announcement of Voluntary Retirement Scheme
(VRS) in 1993 – In order to avail this Scheme, the eligibility conditions
required an employee to have completed 10 years of service in the
D appellant, or completed 40 years of age – Sub-clause (g) of Clause
4 of the Scheme provided for pensionary benefits as per Office
Order dtd. 27.11.1992 – Respondents availed VRS – 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 Lillu Ram’s case such exclusion was upheld
E
– Reconsideration by larger Bench – Held: VRS itself, more
specifically Clause(g), makes Pension Rules applicable– r.21 is clear,
i.e.”all leave during service for which leave salary is payable” would
count – If an employee is not paid for leave, that period has to be
excluded from the period to be counted for admissibility of pension
F – r.3(1)(q), while defining “qualifying service” provides for service
rendered while on duty “or otherwise which shall be taken into
account for the purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under
these rules”– Thus, the period of leave for which leave salary is
not payable would be excluded – Rule is crystal clear and does not
brook any two interpretations – Pension Scheme was sought to be
G
introduced only couple of months before the VRS – It was ultimately
implemented by the appellant, much later in 1995 – Thus, the
occasion for making any entries for this leave period in the service
record, in terms of the Rules did not even arise at the stage when
the VRS was applied – To avail the benefit of Pension Rules, an
H
532
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. BALWAN SINGH 533

employee must qualify in terms of the Rules– Respondents do not A
do so, as the period sought to be excluded from their qualifying
service is one where they were admittedly not paid leave salary –
Qualifying period for the VRS would have to be governed by that
Scheme and cannot ipso facto be imported into the entitlement of
pension, contrary to the plain wordings of the Pension Rules –
B
Pension Rules came into force much later, though the intention was
announced just before the VRS – Respondents were not governed
by these Rules, but by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund
Scheme – Result may be the same as in Lillu Ram’s case, reasoning
is slightly different from that view – Impugned order set aside –
Interpretation of Statutes - Service Law. C
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The VRS itself, more specifically clause (g),
makes these very Rules applicable. Rule 21 is quite clear in its
terms, i.e., “all leave during service for which leave salary is
payable” would count. The corollary is that if an employee is not D
paid for leave, that period has to be excluded from the period to
be counted for admissibility of pension. Rule 3(1)(q), while
defining “qualifying service” provides for service rendered while
on duty “or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the
purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules.” E
Thus, the period of leave for which salary is payable would be
taken into account for determining the pensionable service, while
the period for which leave salary is not payable would be excluded.
The Rule is crystal clear and does not brook any two
interpretations. When the words of a statute are clear and
unambiguous, there cannot be a recourse to any principle of F
interpretation other than the rule of literal construction. The
endeavour to refer to Rules 27 & 28 of the Pension Rules is of
no avail, as those are dealing with the effect of interruption in
service which may result in forfeiture of past service. In the
present case, there has been no forfeiture of past service. G
[Paras 20, 21][542-G, H; 543-A-C]
1.2 Insofar as the Government decision dated 28.2.1976 is
concerned, that elucidates the requirement of a prompt entry
into the service record, but this certainly cannot supersede the
H
534 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.

A Rule. The position would be no different for SR 200, SR 202 and
the other Government of India Order dated 24.6.1966. It is trite
to say that as per Kelsen’s Hierarchy of Legal Norms, the
Grundnorm, being the Constitution of India, the applicable
hierarchy would read as under:
B “(1) The Constitution of India.
(2) Statutory Law, which may be either Parliamentary Law
or law made by the State Legislature.
(3) Delegated legislation which may be in the form of rules,
regulations etc. made under the Act.
C
(4) Administrative instructions which may be in the form of
GOs, Circulars etc.”
In the given facts of the present case, the respondents were
not governed by these Rules, but by the Employees Contributory
D Provident Fund Scheme. The Pension Scheme was sought to be
introduced only couple of months before the VRS, and that too
was not implemented till 1995. Not only that, it was not
implemented through the LIC but ultimately by the appellant-
Corporation itself, much later in 1995. Thus, the occasion for
making any entries for this leave period in the service record, in
E terms of the Rules did not even arise at the stage when the VRS
was applied. There may have been some significance to these
aspects if the Pension Rules were already applicable over a period
of time and entries had not been made, though, even there, it
would not be in supersession of the plain language of the Rule.
F [Paras 22, 23][543-D-H; 544-A, B]
1.3 To avail of the benefit of Pension Rules, an employee
must qualify in terms of the Rules. In the present case, the
respondents unfortunately do not do so, as the period which is
sought to be excluded from their qualifying service is one where
they have admittedly not been paid leave salary. The qualifying
G
period for the VRS would have to be governed by that Scheme
and cannot ipso facto be imported into the entitlement of pension,
contrary to the plain wordings of the Pension Rules. There is no
conflict in this, apart from the fact that the Pension Rules came
into force actually much later, though the intention was announced
H
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. BALWAN SINGH 535

just before the VRS. The respondents were governed prior to A
that by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
While the result may be the same as in LilluRam’s case, our
reasoning is slightly different from that view. The impugned order
is set aside. However, to avoid any grave hardship, if any
payments have been made to the respondents, especially in view
B
of the interim order dated 23.7.2014, the appellant-Corporation
will not claim any refund of such amount already paid.
[Para 24-27][544-B-F]
D.T.C. v. Lillu Ram (2017) 11 SCC 407 : [2007]
2 SCR 1092; Swedish Match AB v. Securities and
Exchange Board, India AIR (2004) SC 4219 : [2004] C
3 Suppl. SCR 745 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 2 SCR 1092 referred to Para 1
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 745 referred to Para 20 D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7159
of 2014
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.2011 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 175 of 2008.
E
Ms. Avinish Ahlawat, Dr. Monika Gusain, Advs. for the Appellant.
Narottam Vyas, S. C. Varma, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
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 G
D.T.C. v. Lillu Ram,1 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
1
(2017) 11 SCC 407
H
536 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.

A Hon’ble Judges of this Court, after examining LilluRam’s2 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 Ram3 case emanated on
B various accounts: (a) if the employee has been sanctioned leave without
pay, why such period should be treated asa 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,
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 their opting for the pension
scheme.
G 4. It appears that despite all intentions, the scheme that had to be
operated by LIC was not implemented till 1995, when it was implemented
by the appellant-Corporation itself. The other development in proximity
to the announcement of the scheme was the announcement of the VRS
2
(supra)
3
(supra)
H
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. BALWAN SINGH 537
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

on 3.3.1993. In order to avail of this Scheme, the eligibility conditions A
required an employee to have completed 10 years of service in the
appellant-Corporation, or completed 40 years of age. Sub-clause (g) of
Clause 4 of the Scheme provided for pensionary benefits as per Office
Order No.16 dated 27.11.1992.
5. It appears that considerable litigation ensued in respect of both B
these aspects, on various accounts,inter alia on the issue of the eligibility
for pension for persons who had put in 10 years or more of qualifying
service, but less than 20 years. All these different issues have been
settled in proceedings before the Delhi High Court or before this Court.
Suffice to say that there isno controversy now, in view of the judicial
pronouncements that there is no embargo in the pension rules that an C
employee having put in more than 10 years of service but less than 20
years would earn pro rata pension if he avails of the VRS.
6. Insofar as the present controversyis concerned, it appears that
the Delhi High Court opined in favour of the employees and SLPs were
dismissed leaving the question of law open till the appellant-Corporation D
pointed out that the question of law needed to be settled, in view of a
large number of cases coming up on this aspect. It is in these
circumstances that the issue was examined in LilluRam’s4 case. A
reference was made to Rule 3(1)(q) of the Pension Rules, which reads
as under: E
“3. Definitions:
In these rules, unless the context otherwise requires –
(1) (a) to (p) xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
(q) ‘Qualifying Service’ means service rendered while on duty or F
otherwise which shall be taken into account for the purpose of
pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules;”
7. It was opined that since the leave availed of was treated
asabsence from dutyin an unauthorisedmanner, that period ought not to
be counted towards the “qualifying service” as the very definition of G
“qualifying service” means service rendered while on duty or otherwise.
Since the Pension Rules had been adopted, the provisions of the Pension
Rules would have to be applied for determining the eligibility. A reference
was also made to Rule 49(1) of the Pension Rules, which reads as under:
4
(supra) H
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.

A “49. Amount of Pension:
(1) In the case of a Government servant retiring in accordance
with the provisions of these rules before completing qualifying
service of ten years, the amount of service gratuity shall be
calculated at the rate of half month’s emoluments for every
B completed six monthly period of qualifying service.”
The conclusion, thus reached was that absence without sanction
is unauthorised leave, which would have to be excluded fromthe period
of qualifying service, for determining the period of 10 years of qualifying
service for admissibility of pension, and thatwhen a person is entitled to
C seek VRS on completion of 10 years of service, that would not ipso
facto imply that this period would also have to be counted for purposes
of admissibility of pension.
8. On behalf of the appellant-Corporation, Ms.AvnishAhlawat,
learned counsel sought to draw sustenance for her argument from Rule
D 21, which reads as under:
“21. Counting of periods spent on leave
All leave during service for which leave salary is payable [and all
extraordinary leave granted on medical certificate] shall count as
qualifying service :
E
Provided that in the case of extraordinary leave [other than
extraordinary leave granted on medical certificate], the appointing
authority may, at the time of granting such leave, allow the period
of that leave to count as qualifying service if such leave is granted
to a Government servant –
F
(i) omitted.
(ii) due to his inability to join or rejoin duty on account of civil
commotion; or
(iii) for prosecuting higher scientific and technical studies.”
G 9. It was, thus, her contention that when the Rule itself is clear
that the counting of period for pension, in respect of leave availed of,
would be admissible only where “leave salary is payable,” and there are
only two exceptions as stipulated in the proviso, it was not for this Court
to add or subtract from the Rule.
H
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. BALWAN SINGH 539
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

10. She further contended that reference to Rules 27 & 28 of the A
Pension Rules would not be appropriate as those provisions dealt with
the effect of interruption in service and condonation of interruption in
service. The Rules read as under:
“27. Effect of interruption in service
(1) An interruption in the service of a Government servant entails B
forfeiture of his past service, except in the following cases:-
(a) authorized leave of absence;
(b) unauthorized absence in continuation of authorized leave of
absence so long as the post of absentee is not filled substantively; C
(c) suspension, where it is immediately followed by reinstatement,
whether in the same or a different post, or where the Government
servant dies or is permitted to retire or is retired on attaining the
age of compulsory retirement while under suspension;
(d) transfer to non-qualifying service in an establishment under D
the control of the Government if such transfer has been ordered
by a competent authority in the public interest;
(e) joining time while on transfer from one post to another.
(2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), the
[appointing authority] may, by order, commute retrospectively the E
periods of absence without leave as extraordinary leave.
28. Condonation of interruption in service
(a) In the absence of a specific indication to the contrary in the
service book, an interruption between two spells of civil service F
rendered by a Government servant under Government including
civil service rendered and paid out of Defence Services Estimates
or Railway Estimates shall be treated as automatically condoned
and the pre-interruption service treated as qualifying service.
(b) Nothing in Clause (a) shall apply to interruption caused by G
resignation, dismissal or removal from service or for participation
in a strike.
(c) The period of interruption referred to in Clause (a) shall not
count as qualifying service.”
H
540 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.

A 11. The contention, thus, was that an interruption in service would
entail forfeiture of past service, unless it fell within clauses (a) to (e) of
sub-rule (1) of Rule 27 of the Pension Rules.
12. FR 17-A of the Fundamental Rules also deals with unauthorised
absence without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 27 of the Pension
B Rules but none of those provisions would apply in the facts of the present
case.
13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents sought
to draw our attention to the Government of India decision M.F., O.M.
No.F.11 (3)-E. V (A)/76 dated 28.2.1976, reproduced as “Government
C of India’s decisions” set out just below Rule 21 of the Pension Rules,
which reads as under:
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA’S DECISIONS
(1) Need for making proper entries for treatment of
extraordinary leave for pensionary benefits. - Under Rule
D 21 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, extraordinary leave granted
on medical certificate qualifies for pension. The Appointing
Authority may, at the time of granting extraordinary leave, also
allow the period of such leave to count as qualifying for pension if
the leave is granted to a Government servant –
E (i) due to his inability to join or rejoin duty on account of civil
commotion, or
(ii) for prosecuting higher technical and scientific studies.
Extraordinary leave taken on other grounds is treated as non-
qualifying and, therefore, a definite entry is to be made in the
F
service records to that effect. Entries regarding service being
qualifying or otherwise are required to be made simultaneously
with the event. Even where this is not done, it should still be possible
to rectify the omission during the period allowed for preparatory
action, i.e., from two years in advance of the retirement date up
G to eight months before retirement. At the end of that period,
however (i.e., when the actual preparation of the pension papers
is taken in hand), no further enquiry into past events or check of
past records should be undertaken. Specific entries in the service
records regarding non-qualifying periods will be taken note of and
H
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. BALWAN SINGH 541
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

such periods excluded from the service. All spells of extraordinary A
leave not covered by such specific entries will be deemed to be
qualifying service.”
14. Learned counsel emphasised that a definite entry is required
to be made inthe service record latest by 8 months before
retirement.Allspells of extraordinary leave not covered by such specific B
entry would be deemed to be qualifying service.
15. Learned counsel also drew our attention to SR 200 of
theSupplementary Rules (hereinafter referred to as the ‘SR’), which
reads as under:
“S.R. 200. Every period of suspension from employment and every C
other interruption of service must be noted, with full details of its
duration, in an entry made across the page of the Service Book
and must be attested by the Attesting Officer. It is the duty of the
Attesting Officer to see that such entries are promptly made.”
16. Learned counsel also referred to the Government of India D
Order No.M.F., O.M. No.F.18 (7)-E. V (B)/65-Part-V dated 24.6.1966,
the relevant extract of which reads as under:
“Government of India’s Orders
(1) Annual verification of services. -
E
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
NOTE 2. – Questions affecting pension or the pensionable service
of a Government servant which for their decision depend on
circumstances known at the time, should be considered as soon
as they arise and should not be left over for consideration until the F
Government servant retires or is about to retire. Definite decisions
should be arrived at on all such questions in consultation with the
Audit Officer and/or the Accounts Officer, as the case may be,
where necessary and recorded in the Service Book quoting
reference to the orders of the Competent Authority.
G
…. …. …. …. …. ….”
(2) Need for proper maintenance of Service Book to
eliminate delay in payment of pension. –
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
H
542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.

A 3. The orders of the Competent Authority regarding the counting
or otherwise of periods of extraordinary leave or periods preceding
breaks in service as qualifying for pension should be obtained
invariably at the same time as the occasion arises and not later.
Such orders should be noted in the Service Book. Unless otherwise
shown in the Service Book, it will be presumed that the orders of
B
Competent Authority have been obtained and the periods of
extraordinary leave and periods preceding break in service will
count for pension.
…. …. …. …. …. ….”
C 17. Learned counsel, thus, emphasised the importance of every
interruption of service required to be noted with full details of its duration,
and its entry made in the service book, as also the inadvisability of
consideration of question affectingpension or pensionable service being
left until the Government servant retires or is about to retire.
D 18. Learned counsel also contended that possibly, the respondents
may not have availed of the VRS had they been told that they would not
get the benefit of pension in view of what is stated aforesaid by the
appellant-Corporation, and to deprive them subsequently of it would be
unfair and unjust, apart from itbeing an adverse decision madewithout
notice to them.
E
19. We have examined the contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and the judgment in LilluRam’s5case and the order of reference
dated9.11.2016.
20. In our view,the only aspect which is required to be considered
F is the requirement of the specific rule of the Pension Rules, which
provides for admissibility of pension. No one, including the respondents
can be permitted to plead that they would be unaware of the Pension
Rules, which have a statutory force and whose benefit they seek to
avail. In fact, the VRS itself, more specifically clause (g), makes these
very Rules applicable. Rule 21 is quite clear in its terms, i.e., “all leave
G during service for which leave salary is payable” would count. The
corollary is that if an employee is not paid for leave, that period has to be
excluded from the period to be counted for admissibility of pension. Rule
3(1)(q), while defining “qualifying service” provides for service rendered
5
(supra)
H
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. BALWAN SINGH 543
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

while on duty “or otherwise which shall be taken into account for the A
purpose of pensions and gratuities admissible under these rules.” Thus,
theperiod of leave for which salary is payable would be taken into account
for determining the pensionable service, while the period for which leave
salary is not payable would be excluded. The Rule is crystal clear and
does not brook any two interpretations. It is a well settled principle of
B
interpretation that when the words of a statute are clear and unambiguous,
there cannot be a recourse to any principle of interpretation other than
the rule of literal construction.6
21. The endeavour to refer to Rules 27 & 28 of the Pension Rules
is of no avail, as those are dealing with theeffect of interruption in service
which may result in forfeiture of past service. In the present case, there C
has been no forfeiture of past service.
22. Insofar as the Government decision dated 28.2.1976 is
concerned, that elucidates the requirement ofa prompt entry into
theservice record, but thiscertainly cannot supersede the Rule. The
position would be no different for SR 200, SR 202 and theother D
Government of India Order dated 24.6.1966. It is trite to say that as
perKelsen’s Hierarchy of Legal Norms, the Grundnorm, being the
Constitution of India, the applicable hierarchy would read as under:
“(1) The Constitution of India.
E
(2) Statutory Law, which may be either Parliamentary Law or
law made by the State Legislature.
(3) Delegated legislation which may be in the form of rules,
regulations etc. made under the Act.
(4) Administrative instructions which may be in the form of GOs, F
Circulars etc.”
23. In the given facts of the present case, we will have to take
note of an important aspect, i.e., the respondents were not governed by
these Rules, but by the Employees Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
The Pension Scheme was sought to be introduced only couple of months G
before the VRS, and that too was not implemented till 1995. Not only
that, it was not implemented through the LIC but ultimately by the
appellant-Corporation itself, much later in 1995. Thus, the occasion for

6
Swedish Match AB v. Securities and Exchange Board, India AIR (2004) SC 4219
H
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 4 S.C.R.

A making any entries for this leave period in the service record, in terms of
the Rules did not even arise at the stage when the VRS was applied.
There may have been some significance to these aspects if the Pension
Rules were already applicable over a period of time and entries had not
been made, though, even there, it would not be in supersession of the
plain language of the Rule.
B
24. We have, thus, no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that
to avail of the benefit of Pension Rules, an employee must qualify in
terms of the Rules. In the present case, the respondents unfortunately
do not do so, as the period which is sought to be excluded from their
qualifying service is one where they have admittedly not been paid leave
C salary. The qualifying period for the VRS would have to be governed by
that Scheme and cannot ipso factobe imported into the entitlement of
pension, contrary to the plain wordings of the Pension Rules. We see no
conflict in this, apart from the fact that the Pension Rules came into
force actually much later, though the intention was announced just before
D the VRS. The respondents were governed prior to that by the Employees
Contributory Provident Fund Scheme.
25. We may, however, notice here that while the result may be
the same as in LilluRam’s7case, our reasoning is slightly different from
that view.
E 26. We, thus, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order,
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
27. However, to avoid any grave hardship, if any payments have
been made to the respondents, especially in view of the interim order
dated 23.7.2014, the appellant-Corporation will not claim any refund of
F such amount already paid.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

G

7
(supra)
H