DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusMOOL CHAND
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1379
- Decided
- 2 December 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
An employee who retires under a VRS that expressly provides that pension will not be payable is not entitled to a pension.
Summary
The Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in 1995 that expressly stated employees opting for the scheme would not be entitled to a pension. Mool Chand, the respondent, retired under this scheme. The Delhi High Court had held that despite the scheme's terms, the respondent was still eligible for a pension in addition to VRS benefits. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the scheme's explicit provision and concluded that the High Court erred in its interpretation. The Court held that the express exclusion of pension rights in the VRS scheme barred any pension entitlement for those who opted for it. Consequently, the High Court judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether an employee who opts for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme that expressly excludes pension rights is still entitled to a pension under service law.
Subjects
Judgment
. [2008] 16 S.C.R. 1073
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION A
·~
v.
MOOL CHAND
(Civil Appeal No. 7258 of 2002)
DECEMBER 2, 2008
B
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.]
,. i
Service Law:
Voluntary Retirement Scheme - Providing that c
employees opting for the Scheme would not be entitled to
pensiqn - High Court holding that the employee would get
pension in addition to VRS benefits - HELD: Judgment of
High Court is erroneous and is set aside.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7258 of 2002.
)--
) From the final Judgment dated 6.11.2001 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in LP.A. No. 62 of 2001.
E
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2301, 2302 of 2007.
S.B. Sanyal, A. Subhashini, Sunil Dalal, Jay Kishore Singh
(for Subramonium Prasad), B.D. Sharma, Naresh Kaushik and p
Arnita Kalkal (for Lalita Kaushik) for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
ORDER
G
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
1073 H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.
A referred to as the 'Corporation', in 1993 which contained a f.
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
8
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
C 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.
D 5. The Appeal is allowed accordingly. No Order as to
costs.
Civil Appeal Nos.2301/2007 and 2302/2007 (
E 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.
F R.P. Appeals disposed of.
.J,.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.